PWE July Meeting -- 11 Jul 2019

Review and merge open Pull Requests

<scribe> scribenick: Ralph

<jorydotcom> hello

#56 Improve details of reporting sections

Ada: thanks for the feedback

<ada> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/56

Ada: this was inspired by the BBC CoC which had very clear reporting guidelines
... rapid response / emergency services info was missing; see separate PR
... next PoC could be speaking to the chair
... the chair should be familiar with those involved
... but should the person not be comfortable raising an issue to the chair -- or if the chair is the issue -- they should be able to go straight to the Ombuds
... and the chairs themselves should be able to go to the Ombuds if they don't feel they can resolve the issue

Judy: I'm glad to see we're not assuming everyone would be comfortable going first to the chair
... I encourage that we provide other channels
... where is the link to the BBC policy?

<tzviya> https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofconduct

<angel> bbc coc:https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/reports/policies/codeofconduct

<nigel> References and Resources

Nigel: regarding chairs being in the escalation path; some groups have multiple chairs
... it should be possible that one chair can seek assistance from another chair
... should a chair be able to do that, or approach another Team member, before going to the Ombuds?

Ada: giving people options and letting them go wherever they're most comfortable

Nigel: yes; open wording rather than closed wording

Tzviya: +1 to Ada; we have to remember this is not a formal process and that people will go where they're more comfortable anyway
... I'd prefer to advise people to go to a chair or Ombuds

<angel> + 1 to encourage people to go to ombuds and chairs

Tzviya: our goal should be to circulate this for review very soon
... we'd discussed whether reporting should be more robust in this document or in a separate place
... I'm fine adding a bit more to this document
... so we can circulate for review quickly

Angel: will all chairs be comfortable handling issues such as these?

Ada: we could say that if a chair is not comfortable handling CEPC issues the chair should help the individual raise it in other ways

Jory: that leads to the training issue
... I've been talking with others about finding resources and developing a training program
... we'd need to provide training before asking chairs to step into this role
... we could even open it to everybody

<nigel> +1 to the idea of training for Chairs, as a Chair!

Angel: could raise this during TPAC Chairs' Breakfast

Judy: important to have training for chairs, also important to not put them in this role before there is training

<tzviya> +1 to chairs' training, as a chair

<wendyreid> +1 to chair's training, also as a chair

Tzviya: every chair with whom I've spoken thinks this [training] is a good idea
... people approach chairs now
... we know that not everyone will handle such issues well

<Judy> [jb: what tzviya is saying works for me]

Tzviya: people can judge for themselves what they think is the best option
... so we can list several options

Judy: if we raise this with the chairs at TPAC, let's have a proposal; not just raise the question

Jory: agree; a concrete proposal for what we might provide
... e.g. a 30-minute training session on responding to incident reports
... and point to the type of materials we might use

Judy: "welcome everyone to be resources for each other, plan to have resources, plan to have a training session, any discussion"

Jory: sounds do-able

Ada: I'll make a pull request for #56

Pull Request 57 - Clarify what we reserve the right to not act on

#57 "unacceptable" about reverse -isms

Ada: there was an old discussion on #44 where people felt OK to draft a pr
... there have been some changes proposed to my initial text
... social justice debates
... tone
... this is a list of stuff that Ombuds may choose not to act on
... I'm working on improving the text based on the feedback
... generally there seems to be agreement
... the current conversation is on the opening text; do we have to guarantee that we will give a response?
... the pr largely seems to be uncontroversial; it's getting the details right

Nigel: what's the motivation for 'will' vs. 'should'?

Ada: initially it read "will prioritize the safety" but the section was moved into a "... but ..." case and I didn't want to reduce the intensity of the initial statement
... I didn't want to reduce the importance of that second bit with it being after a 'but' in the initial phrase

Nigel: perhaps 'but' should be 'and'?

Ada: there needs to be some contrast
... we do need to take everything seriously but some issues shouldn't be brought forward for these reasons
... but maybe 'and' does work

Nigel: or a new sentence

Ada: perhaps [the initial sentence] should be moved elsewhere

Nigel, Jory: +1

Ada: I'll make that change; it makes more sense

pull request #51

#51 added rapid response info to Reporting

Ada: this is about contacting law enforcement first
... we're waiting for an email address to populate the field
... then it should be OK to merge

Judy: a practical issue:
... in most codes it's common to say, in urgent situations, "contact local law enforcement"
... we work in a very diverse organization where people come from multiple contries and may not be familiar with the jurisdiction they're visiting
... it may be bewildering to have to find local law enforcement, and possibly not even safe
... I suggest that we make this real and think about what might actually work
... for instance, "if you need help in doing so, here's how ..."
... these are hypotheticals but may be likely in our distributed international environment
... "contact local law enforcement but also contact the Ombuds"
... [W3M] has had some discussion about rapid response procedures

<nigel> scribe: nigel

Ralph: 3 things.
... I concur with Judy's comment that someone might not know how to contact local law enforcement
... There's a W3M conversation about rapid response protocol.
... The current PWE procedures document notes [looks up the link]

<Ralph> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#ombuds

Ralph: lists the Ombuds and has a note that the Ombuds may be contacted individually or in subset (or all of them)
... I realised we don't have a convenient way to contact all of them, so
... I created an alias

<Ralph> mailto:ombuds@w3.org

Ralph: I suggest that might be a reasonable place to start.

<Judy> [JB: tries to clarify that I *wasn't* proposing adding detail about "How" -- I was suggesting adding something to make it less of an either-or, but rather a "both-and" -- e.g. contact local law enforcement, and feel free to also contact ombuds to ask for help or support with dealing with local law enforcement]

Ralph: I proposed internally that we create an alias specifically for rapid response
... That's undergoing discussion

Ada: I'll add that to the PR

Judy: That doesn't address my concerns fully

Ralph: I didn't intend it to.

Angel: Practical suggestion: could we have the ombudsperson prepare the local law enforcement contact info
... and people may not have an idea how to call the police like Tokyo, China, Lisbon.
... When we have thecontact info and way to contact fixed before the event the ombudsperson could check out the local law enforcement
... contact information and prepare that for quick access.

Judy: Difficult suggestion to do. In a given country of the many we hold meetings in, even from region to region
... or city to city the contact policies may be different and that would be an exhaustive exercise to compile it.
... It could get left off the planning list.
... The frequency of urgent situations is hopefully low, but not non-existent.
... What I was thinking of was different, which was to indicate not that a message would go to

<Ralph> [Wikipedia] List of emergency telephone numbers

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to re-focus the discussion of my suggestion

Judy: all the ombudspeople, but rather that we not present to somebody an either/or if it is an urgent issue.
... Just say "call your local folks and feel free to let an ombudsperson know"
... Along the same lines as physical injury away from base, have to go to emergency room.
... We encourage people not to go alone but for someone else to go with them esp if the country isn't familiar to them.
... I'm thinking of something lightweight - if urgent, contact local law enforcement and also you can let someone else know

<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to discuss a practical suggestion about local instruction

Ralph: I think we're deep into details which are probably better handled outside this call
... I thought we'd had a conversation, I don't recall where, but would solicit advice here, of making emergency, both

<jorydotcom> +1 to that

Ralph: for law enforcement and health, a required part of every f2f meeting logistics planning and documentation
... It's more general than the PWE issues we're discussing

Ada: From recent meetings, when the venue has been hosted at a big organisation,
... we've been requested by the hosts not to call emegrency services but inform someone in the building
... Wondering if important to see that represented.

Ralph: Exactly, that's not PWE, it's instructions for organising a meeting
... Those kinds of venue specific constructions can't be done by ombuds in general.
... The local organiser knows building-specific instructions. Exactly right Ada.
... Date specific too

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask about building security when available

<inserted> scribe: jorydotcom

Nigel: Some buildings have security present
... is it reasonable to suggest that they be part of a protocol
... if people aren't comfy with local law enforcement
... what happens if you go to a meeting hosted by a big company with it's own building security

Judy: .. when things have gone wrong, that's been one of the problems
... let's say someone has a med emergency. you want to call local law enf anyway and you can notify security
... but building sec. can still be a 5-10 min response cycle anyway

even in med emergency

<Ralph> MIT's emergency instructions (for example)

scribe: so don't risk losing critical time by only contacting one
... I like angel's idea about making sure local numbers are available
... i'm suggesting that we add something that says if you do need to contact local law enforcement, please let an omsbudsperson know and whether you want someone to go with you

Angel: I think thiis should be part of meeting of preparation
... we have one more meeting between now and TPAC
... should we have another meeting?

<jorydotcom> +1

scribe: group is +1 to scheduling bi-weekly
... next call would be the 26th?
... we still have items for today that are not finished

<wendyreid> +1

scribe: group is ok moving add'l items from this week to next time

<Judy> [JB: does anyone disagree with the suggestion I've been making? I can add an issue on this if needed; I have not heard an objection, but neither have I heard anyone respond directly on my suggestion, only other alternative ideas, some of which may also be useful.]

<Ralph> [I would appreciate an issue with specific wording, Judy]

scribe: we need to have something by end of August

ada .. would it be ok to get something after #57 is merged

angel .. yes

judy .. also looking for feedback on my suggestion, will add an issue

Ralph .. specific wording would be helpful

scribe: meeting concludes

question to probably @Ralph - is there a good resource for learning the irc bot commands etc?

I'm not so great at IRC

<Ralph> Jory, mostly people learn by watching :) but the "Running a Meeting" section of the Chair's Guidebook -- https://www.w3.org/Guide/#run -- has several resources that help to get started

<wendyreid> jorydotcom, We have this resource we use in publishing :) https://github.com/w3c/publ-bg/wiki/Using-IRC-for-Meetings

<wendyreid> A little more simplified

TY TY!!!

<Ralph> and, as Wendy just noted, each group customizes the "general practices" according to that group's preferences

<Ralph> scribe: Ralph, Nigel, Jory

- DRAFT -

PWE July Meeting

11 Jul 2019

Attendees

Contents

Review and merge open Pull Requests

Pull Request 57 - Clarify what we reserve the right to not act on

pull request #51

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output