PWE/201708 TPAC

From W3C Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search

The notes below were scribed by Amy van der Hiel at the Positive Working Environment (PWE) breakout session at TPAC 2017. She sent these notes to the PWE Task Force (PWETF) mailing list on November 11, 2017 [1]

Ann Bassetti took handwritten notes during the meeting. She merged her notes in here, to amplify Amy's notes (but not change them substantively). Please refer to the link above, for Amy's original notes.

Does anyone know if there is an IRC record of this breakout? [___<insert IRC link here>____]

I know Ann has paper notes with the names of the attendees and other points from the 8 November PWET breakout at the TPAC but here are my typed notes. If we can clean them up and integrate, we can add the attendees who are not on the pwet list and send.

Ann Bassetti
Amy van der Hiel
Vladimir Levantovsky
Vivienne Conway
Paul Belfanti
Rachel Comerford
Amanda Mace
Tzviya Siegman
Daniel Peintner
Takuki Kamiya
Angel Li
Vagner Diniz
Jeff Jaffe
Coralie Mercier
Tara Whalen
Mike Champion
Tantek Çelik
Ralph Swick
Natasha Rooney
David Singer
Dave Cramer (remote on IRC as dauwhe)

[[The focus of the questions was: what’s working; what could be better; and what’s the most important thing to do first? Amy's notes are first, then Ann's notes are inserted in the form: W = what's working; N = what's not working; F = what we should focus on first]]

the CoC (Code of Conduct) should be less prescriptive. not what not to do this is about higher behavior. not how low it is permissible to go a high standard approach is positive and would better cultural difference. not only do we not define. what falls into this category. example: someone from Europe, hugged and kissed me. this is the kind of cultural differences some are not aware of. she was equally offended by my response we can make it all positive. be respectful. give examples

W: we have a Code of Conduct
N: wording
F: improving wording

what's working is the welcoming. what doesn't work as well. for those who don't attend in person, there's some missing info. how to get and keep involved. too large of an attrition rate. not feeling they belong in a group .. anyone can join WG when they do so, if they've not come to TPAC, how do we get them acclimatized and get them in WG and keep them involved?there can be 100s emails, purpose, whether or not part of things focus: improve how we integrate people who aren't f2f

W: Working Groups and W3C are welcoming
N: people who are not at F2F meetings need better introduction & engagement, else we have attrition
F: think more about how to engage people digitally

Rachel (a new participant):
one thing that was difficult was a lot of resources were thrown at me at once, quite detailed, it was overwhelming. even as someone who juggles other groups/wikis I've been happy to have Tzviya and Dave Cramer who are my "w3c parents". it's an overwhelming experience a dummies guide would be necessary what works: the w3c coordinators, representative. Ivan. has been so welcoming and has really embraced bringing in all people who are so unfamiliar and understand proceses, and to answer any question. a massive help solution: cloning Ivan. these issues of a 'buddy' are being repeated,

Ann: if you'd have us do one thing?
Rachel: really short intro.
Tzviya: here is the newbie guide for Publishing WG that Ivan wrote

W: Ivan Herman has been very helpful with joining W3C, & Tzviya and Dave Cramer helpful buddies in the WG (Publishing)
N: Overwhelming amount of info
F: Intro to terminology / tools / processes

It wasn't clear that the CoC existed suggestion: to advertise it more I think wrt to Vivienne the code of conduct should be the same re: f2f or phone

Vivienne: most people aren't aware
Vlad: if you're here in person, it's very different experience.
Ann: do you have ideas of what's working and what is difficult?

W: have a Code of Conduct
N: didn't know about it
F: have better introduction to WG members

when we joined W3C it was not as big.

Ann: more commonsense rules? teleconference times choosing the right time, Australia, Japan, china in the AB we had people around the world.
Mike; now the west coast always suffers
Ann: we'd get up at 5am, so it gave someone in Japan a reasonable time
Vivienne: it's always in the middle of the night
Amanda: timezone decision can impact my sabbath
Ann: we can develop techniques to be more sensitive
dauwhe: CSSWG does a call once a month at a different time, which is better for Australia and Japan


W: good we have a Code of Conduct
N: hard to know what to do
F: focus on common-sense rules on how to handle situations

Tzviya: I think what works: IRC, it looks like 1996 but it helps queue management ... the best practices document that Ann sent around. I didn't know it existed (Ann clarifies it didn’t until recently) One thing that helps to remember is consensus does not mean unanimity. we do give guidance for these problems we have people who feel really strongly and the Best Practices are very helpful. one suggestion that came up over and over in Chairs breakfast (at TPAC) we have tools, no one knows they exist. you get an automatic email. here are some useful tools.

W: IRC queue management; Best Practices document
N: email that's sent upon arrival
F: improve introductory info

Vlad: I support this idea. when you throw info at new people, what's most important, good to know, and reference. prioritize it. 1. you need to know this. 2. good to know, and 3. for reference
Coralie: Tzviya could you forward your welcome message and i'll ask other Chairs for a practice to do the same? that new member mail, I probably saw it 19 years ago. could you resend? in the wake of the Chairs' breakfast we have to provide key info if in that communication you can be more helpful that's a win for everyone

the IP issue that’s mentioned is vital

you could reference, not useless, things you need to know. and expand. Chairs are sending out info on what you need to know what's not working: I didn't know there was a CoC. we should point out, when we have f2f, that's different than phone. social media has different one from f2f you can't read tone. there is a reason to have two different code of conducts. or include stuff re: email and f2f

W: Welcome letter from Chair
N: I didn't know (yet assumed) there is a Code of Conduct
F: may need variations of Code of Conduct for F2F versus offlinek

I'm ok w/ the CoC. it's short enough. the only thing I suggest to change is regarding respect respect can include timezone, language barriers. it's more than the wording here I would improve the description. respect the difference in environment regarding the whole idea of a code of conduct is a given environment. We are here. so this is a given environment. This is the CoC the environment can be changed. We can try to change it for the better. I would like to see promote diversity in W3C there's no encouragement of diversity

Ann: you suggest we more overtly state our goals?
Vagner: I note this is one group where women are more represented I am not sure why most of women are interested
Coralie: there is an equal number of women in the room
Vlad: I find it counter productive to encourage diversity
Amy: I respectfully disagree
Vagner: I try to make things equal
Tantek: +1 to Vagner's general comments

W: Code of Conduct is fine
N: definition of "respect" in glossary is too narrow
F: could add concepts of timezone, language barriers, differences in situations. Be more overt in our goals for diversity.

what's working: w3c is an org that's well-tooled and well-infrastructured. people say w3c is a trendsetter, we take care of attendees what’s not working: it is related what is good. gives a mindset. how to do w3c things. new ideas, go and set up a CG. the Chinese, it takes 10 minutes to do a CG and another (WeChat) group works for Chinese. to give more options, CG too hard. for others for other practices. to make standards happen is a goal but more openness for more tools

W: <Ann: sorry, I missed this>
N: W3C tools don't necessarily work for Chinese
F: say that people can use a few other tools that are comfortable for them

Coralie: you're not obligated to use that for CG.
Ann: what if you have a big discussion in WeChat. is that archived or preserved?
Angel: it can be kept. we can't give a specific URI, it's a closed system.
Ralph: [do we make it easy to add pointers to other social media channels that a CG has chosen to use? e.g. add WeChat to a CG home page]
Ann: privacy? if we have conversation on FB or twitter or WeChat?

Angel: there is a way to share 2nd thing not working. good to have but it's only the surface. in my early days, I had bad behaviors opposed to CoC. I dealt w/ in my own way. I was not aware, of the ombudsperson. I would not want to do that. it would be difficult for many people. wording. very clear and strict working. do not give power to <??> I'm ombudsperson it took me a while to realize the misbehavior was caused by culture difference. some behavior common but unexpected. it's not bad intention but showing affection. necessary for people to know ombuds to have the right training. to trust to go to them we never talked to each other, used our knowledge together
Tantek: [Ralph, is there any difference in privacy policy / etc. between using different silos like that? E.g. WeChat or Facebook Messenger or AIM chat groups?]

I'm also an ombudsperson. issues have come to my attention. I've had more than one occasion where an advocate comes to me and says "I know of a person in a community who has a PWET issue and is trying to figure what to do. whether to approach you." .. they are not sure to bring in ombudsperson. in some cases I never hear what happens. there are known issues where not comfortable w/ vh

Amy: escalation process and training are very important
Jeff: sometimes people approach as an intermediary ... how could I coach Ann, if I can't talk to the person who is aggrieved w/ Ann?

I came in as a chair to get a sense of what wasn't working I also want to know as a responsible person, about disseminating info I want to make sure we're maintaining culture

I think from my perspective. leadership not contributor. follow trends. point to who has expertise. what's working and not are intertwined. there's complexity that has to be sorted through. there's a lot of care and steps and filters. the flip side is that there are regularly rabbit holes in discussion it's less about the specific issue and more about a philosophical position and polemic … but it’s an interesting conversation, the chair doesn't want to cut off, need to be balanced w/ what's going on. can create misperception

Tantek: +1 to what Paul is saying
Ann: I was just struggling w/ that
W:<Ann: sorry, I missed this>
N: speakers going down 'rabbit holes'
F: Chairs need help

working: impressed by the participation in this session. reflects good demographics if you search for w3c CoC it's the first result so it’s findable. there's a growing awareness. more people aware W3C is picking up tools, shift to tools, respectful behavior. transferred everything to email to GitHub. focusing. nearly eliminated long polemics and essays that don't end what’s not working: email. can't believe AC forum. 4 members of AB. we care about topic we need to set and encourage good examples. encourage better behavior. some bad behavior comes from some members of the AB on AC Forum
W: a lot of people here, in this session; CEPC comes up in search;
N: better tools, e.g., GitHub issues instead of email

working group effectiveness TF. information is what we're focusing on. it's split and everywhere. hard to find. now try to gather info and divide chairs etc. new mmebers, new chairs, existing ones cheat sheets for what is searched for. the info architecture is being designed. work w/ PWET and Commm culture issues are a problem Judy Zhu did a great presentation promotion is really important. everyone hates promoting stuff. we are going to have to do this. . we should promote properly I want to get this done way before next TP. if you're interested in helping. please let me know

we want to promote properly. when we talk about it

you'll get this when I talk about the process session in a different org. we couldn't have abusive person ejected the only thing our W3C said is Director could ask TAG member to resign. normative link to CoC and Director can remove so now there's a chain.

dauwhe: chairs are so important in setting the tone & boundaries of a group.