<dauwhe> webex is telling me meeting is 11AM to 12PM?

<tzviya> working on getting the webex rescheduled - apologies

<tzviya> Agenda:

<tzviya> 0. Resolve meeting schedule [1]

<tzviya> 1. Update on CEPC and ReSpec

<tzviya> 2. Ombuddy training resources [2]

<tzviya> 3. Revisions to CEPC [3, 4]

<tzviya> 4. Behavioral norms [5]

<scribe> scribenick: wendyreid

tzviya: We can skip the first agenda item, I need to speak to Angel about the time, I will do so offline
... Let's do some introductions in case everyone does not know
... First item on the agenda is getting CEPC into respec
... Nick has spent a little bit of time on this and there is a PR that has not been merged yet

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/22

tzviya: If anyone is familiar with adding the diff/preview functionality to respec, it would be very helpful
... we can take a look at the work that Nick did, I have not had a chance to look at it in detail
... That is the status for that, any volunteers for reviewing the work?
... Otherwise I will ask Ralph to add the preview and diff functionality
... Next item on the agenda is ombuddy training and resources

Ombuddy Resources

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/20

tzviya: we started reading through them and adding comments
... first was a divide and conquer, find the resources worth sharing and then share them with the existing ombuds and then later with chairs
... I will work with Natasha to add this to chairs resources
... we could use some more help with reviewing resources

nigel: I have some interest in this

tzviya: Just claim which you want to review
... if you're looking for something extremely useful, the schools have the best resources
... it might just be a set of links for people to review on how to mediate arguments, look at this list
... I had no idea what I would be looking for, it is good to just dive in
... I would like to see us make some significant headway by mid-feb

wendyreid: I found some other resources which I will share if useful

tzviya: Second item on the agenda is revisions to the CEPC

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/7

tzviya: there are two issues logged against this

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/17

tzviya: one is the work Vlad has done, and the other is the work Ada Rose Cannon is using in the WebXR working group
... we need to come up with an approach for this that makes as many people comfortable as possible
... the last meeting we had we did not have a quorum and we just discussed the approaches, what are the current trends
... we're a little bit concerned about Vlad and Amy's approach, that it was not specific enough
... if you look at the list of resources from the resources page, there's a discussion on why CoCs can be viewed as being written in negative language
... people tend to not pay much attention to them
... we had a discussion about this, I encourage people to look at Ada Rose's version
... in issue #17, we don't need to adopt it fully, the wording and approach to topics like bullying
... comments?

<dauwhe> https://immersive-web.github.io/homepage/code-of-conduct.html

nigel: There's something in this that I noticed in issue #17, "violations should be reported to one of the co-chairs of the group"
... there's something interesting in what it says on who should do what, people in a position of leadership need to maintain a good working environment
... this version has a role for chairs in the middle between the group and the ombuddies
... our CEPC might need to define that

tzviya: We should divide this in a few parts, we hardly define process in the CEPC, I like that this version defines a process
... for the most part people do talk to the chairs first

<angel> + 1 to chairs to have a role in the CEPC

tzviya: we can talk about the process aspect more, but I want to talk about the CEPC not having definitions on inclusivity and respect
... we need to talk to the team and what it means to be a chair a little more, in the process

Vladimir: I am looking at the version Ada Rose proposed, I like a lot of the concepts, I like the fact that she clearly stated unacceptable and expected behaviour
... as this is a new group, I would like to mention the previous PWE tried the same process, and we tried to define behaviours
... we also wanted to provide information on why things would not be tolerated
... reinforce the concept of "be nice"
... for the prior version of the CoC from last year, it's linked to my comment
... we did not get to the point of legal and wide review
... as far as the approach there's a lot of similarity, what is not tolerated, etc.
... I'd like to disagree with one statement you made Tzviya, for people who do not need to be told what to do, they would not be offended if they were told, and people who need it would not like to be told

<tzviya> https://www.ashedryden.com/blog/codes-of-conduct-101-faq#cocfaqnegative

Vladimir: for the perspective of emotional intelligence, if you tell someone as a preventative measure, "don't be a jerk" is taken as accusing someone to be a jerk
... it causes immediate rejection and denial
... the unfortunate part is that we achieve the opposite of our goal by telling people what not to do
... "I am not X", "I do not harass anyone"
... if you read the previous PWE draft, we decided to emphasize the same 2 parts Ada Rose identified, we identify what is not tolerated
... the second part is to identify what is expected, the reasoning and the how
... we expect everyone to be sensitive to cultural differences, and why to be mindful, and language differences
... we do not have to adopt the old version, but I would like to see something similar
... in an environment of highly-educated individuals we should not have to tell them not to be harassers, but to be respectful and why
... I don't see much disagreement, but it is different from the current CEPC, our language should be highly respectful, we don't need to tell them whati t means to be a good person, just to be mindful of behaviour

tzviya: I don't think we're disagreeing, it's just a matter of the langauge we choose
... Ada's version is more explicit in what behaviours to avoid or choose
... I found the old version to be a bit vague, to avoid offending anyone it gravitated towards general language of "be respectful"

Vladimir: The first 4 bullets are clear in what we expect

tzviya: I am trying to explain my impression of it. I am not saying we adopt Ada Rose's version of it completely, but I found it more clear

<Zakim> Vagner_Br, you wanted to say we have to be very careful in giving more attribution to chairs

tzviya: we can take pieces of all versions, and how do we put it together

Vagner_Br: I would like to go back to what Nigel said about one part of the text where "violations should be reported to the chairs" I think we should be careful of giving more attributions to chairs
... one thing is that the co-chairs have to be the guardians of the CoC, which is ok, but the other is reporting, once you report a violation to the co-chairs, the reporter expects action should be taken
... and I don't think co-chairs are trained to act on these issues
... it is very sensitive to handle these situations

<nigel> +1 (as a chair!)

Vagner_Br: it should be an ombuddy to deal with these violations
... especially if the violations are very serious (i.e. sexual harassment)
... we need to discuss a little more about this

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to suggest that a nested detail approach might be helpful

tzviya: That is an excellent point

nigel: I feel like I'm in the middle of a similar situation, without training it is awkward. But the CEPC suggests I need to deal with it first as chair
... the thing about the level of detail of listing unacceptable behaviour, we could use a nested level of detail, current CEPC has headings, they could then dig down into more specific sections like Ada Rose's CoC example
... it would not look like a provocative list, it's a little less to see the heading statements
... one more point on emotional IQ, in my experience one thing can happen is that people do not think they are behaving unacceptably, but it is not the definition of another person
... being explicit with the categories is important

tzviya: Often people are totally unaware of the violation, and the response varies significantly, and the violations aren't documented, it can be difficult
... in response to chairs, we can leave it up to the offended person, which means that if someone has been harassed, if they are close with the chairs, if Dave was being bullied by Wendy, he would feel comfortable coming to me, so that I can approach an ombuddy
... on the other hand Dave might prefer to talk to Ralph because we have known each other for so long
... another thing we have discussed in WG effectiveness is ombud chairs, so there is training at the chairs level with the same ombuddy training
... we are going to have more ombuddies and training

Vladimir: Regarding chairs, I think it's not black and white, in some cases chairs should be the first line of defense, we are not talking about egregious violations, it might be a heated argument
... a chair would be a good line of defense in that situation to prevent an unproductive group environment, however I see value in Vagner's point where there are privacy concerns, the reporter might not want to advertise publicly
... the chair may be the first point of contact because they know what to do, but it might be someone else if privacy is a concern
... chair might be one and only, or ombuddy
... Going back to Nigel's comment, I have a strong opinion that there is a big difference in how strong communication is structured, it is a statement of fact that we do not tolerate any form of harassment
... any reasonable person would accept that, but if someone behaves in that way, we can point to the definition
... if we use language like "do not harass anyone" some people might take it as an offense
... we should avoid telling people what to do and not do

tzviya: I think we could debate this endlessly, I have had to call people out on CoC violations, specificity is important

Vladimir: I think specificity is important, but it is how we express it

tzviya: I think the version Ada Rose presented does that
... we do need to start proposing some edits
... I have a deadline for this, the AC meeting in May, so we need some proposed text

Vladimir: My first proposal would be to get rid of any statement starting with "never"

tzviya: One thing I like about Ada Rose's version, the section that starts with "the following behaviour is not acceptable..."

Vladimir: I saw a lot of similarities

tzviya: I will start proposing some edits, and I ask that this group review those comments
... we will need to include Wendy
... the first step is to revise the current content, I don't know if we will get to the process part before the AC meeting, but we can try
... defining chairs training
... if there are any suggestions or volunteers I would appreciate it

Vladimir: What if we have a person who is not emotionally attached to either version to compare them and pull out the best, rewrite it into one document
... since we agree that both share a conceptual approach
... use that as a prototype of the final draft
... if I did it I would gravitate towards mine, and vice versa
... a neutral party

tzviya: I have been asked not to completely rewrite the CEPC

Vladimir: Who asked?

tzviya: Jeff and Wendy, revisions are acceptable, but the CEPC has served the W3C very well, they don't see a need for a total revision at this time
... we would need to explain why we are rewriting

Vladimir: Having 2 separate documents with the same goal written by 2 separate people is evidence enough

tzviya: I will speak to Jeff about this

Vladimir: I would disagree that it has served us well, since there have been so many suggestions to change

tzviya: We have a few minutes, I did want to talk about behavioural norms
... Alex Ortiz and I had a discussion about how challenging it can be to become comfortable with how the W3C operates, and maybe we could write a guide to how things work at the W3C
... to guide people so that they understand the processes, but it's not enforceable
... email norms, etc

nigel: The handling of data and information that might be related to a breach of the CEPC that seems normal, there is a behavioural norm in how we handle documents and comments, someone has edited or deleted someone else's comments on a github issue, there should be an expectation on how to handle this

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/23

nigel: the example I put forward in issue #23, there is no norm, therefore there is a problem in handling what to do about that

tzviya: I think it's a really good point, I have gotten some negative feedback, but I wonder if we could put it in github best practices, similar to speaker best practices
... I do want to come back to this point

Vladimir: I agree with Tzviya that it's hard to be specific about behavioural norms, but the old group had a definition of cultural practices, be mindful of these, which could be applicable here, it's useful to mention it
... provide guidance

nigel: A breach of norms where identified is related to the CEPC, there should be additional rules about data, etc. If norms are defined and are not kept to, this might be a breach of the CEPC

<Vagner_Br> bye

tzviya: Thanks everyone, we will confirm the same time for next month, looking forward to comments and feedback!

This is scribe.perl Revision: 1.154  of Date: 2018/09/25 16:35:56  
Check for newer version at http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/scribe/

Guessing input format: Irssi_ISO8601_Log_Text_Format (score 1.00)

Succeeded: s/foudn/found/
Succeeded: s/???/WebXR/
Present: Nigel dauwhe wendyreid tzviya Vladimir Vagner_Br
Found ScribeNick: wendyreid
Inferring Scribes: wendyreid
WARNING: Could not parse date.  Unknown month name "01": 2019-01-10
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"

WARNING: No date found!  Assuming today.  (Hint: Specify
the W3C IRC log URL, and the date will be determined from that.)
Or specify the date like this:
<dbooth> Date: 12 Sep 2002

People with action items: 

WARNING: IRC log location not specified!  (You can ignore this 
warning if you do not want the generated minutes to contain 
a link to the original IRC log.)