previous: 11-July

Angel: Tzviya has a new baby girl :)

<jorydotcom> yayaayay!!!

Open Pull Requests

<Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls/

Ada: one pr is for adding the emergency procedures
... still open after last meeting's discussion
... I'd like feedback and suggestions on the emergency reporting item
... #61 is about unifying the whitespace and fixing some broken tags
... no information should have changed, but I'd like review
... to be sure I only fixed spaces and tags

Angel: we didn't have consensus about emergency reporting last time
... the closest we got was to include basic information
... but we didn't have consensus on specific building (venue) information

Ada: I'll add some general information then

<Angel> https://www.w3.org/2019/07/11-pwe-minutes.html

Ralph: mailto:ombuds@w3.org

<jorydotcom> thank you Ralph

Ralph: I've updated the current Procedures page

Positive Work Environment Home Page

Current Ombuds list

Pull request discussion tracking

<jeff> Jeff: I think there is some confusion. e.g. for reporting #51, I can't even clearly understand what the PR is at this stage ... seems underspecified

Angel: perhaps we should have issues first, then pull requests?
... please indicate support here

<Vlad> +1

<Ralph> +1 to issues first

<jorydotcom> +1 to issues pre-ceding PRs

<Rachel> 0

<jeff> +1

<ada> +1

<wendyreid> +1

Angel: we have consensus

RESOLUTION: this CG will discuss changes via issues first, then consider a pull request

ombuds training resources

<Vlad> Nigel's email: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2019Jul/0000.html

Jory: I've added some things to the repository
... do we want to do something at TPAC?
... this is a preliminary list of resources; I welcome additions
... especially materials that someone has used
... the Ombuds Association has resources too; I have started taking some of their training
... it would be great to identify some materials we would want to recommend to chairs and other leadership
... and grow a training curriculum for new chairs and new ombudspeople

<Rachel> https://gist.github.com/jorydotcom/735914fee05ad84f56440286ba9ec351

<jorydotcom> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/59

<ralph> (this is cited from #59 )

<jorydotcom> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/60

Jeff: what status do we want to assign to these resources?
... as her list of things Jory has found helpful, that's wonderful
... but to be a list that W3C recommends, it needs some vetting
... e.g. one link leads me to an advertisement to buy a book; that's inconsistent with W3C practice
... reading all these materials and becoming comfortable that they represent our view of things will take time

Jory: that's fair
... this list right now just represents materials that I've personally consumed and found useful
... I thought this group _might_ find these useful too
... we could look at the types of resources out there; e.g. some are videos, some are books
... we might want to only promote resources that are freely available
... or only work with materials that are part of a certification path
... I wanted to share a lot of different things and see what people respond to

Angel: I might be ambitious, but might it be possible for W3C to digest and include some of this in our own content?

Jory: it might be possible with some of this
... some of the non-profits might be open to licensing arrangements

Rachel: uncomfortable with advocating anyone purchase something
... but ok to make a list available for people who are curious

Jeff: there's a lot of material in Jory's list

<Angel> +1 to 2 or 3 recommended training docs

Jeff: in my view the most useful thing to do would be for someone who is familiar with all of these to recommend 2 or 3 that are most pertinent, knowing W3C's needs
... then the CG can vet those 2 or 3

Jory: I'd be happy to chose a couple for the group to consider

Angel: thanks Jory

Jory: on TPAC chairs training, what direction does this group suggest we take as a next step?

#60 Idea follow-up: Chairs Training

scribe: TPAC is not far away!

Ralph: I see in the #60 thread a growing consensus for training on de-escalation
... how much effort would it take to extract that from you long list, Jory?

Jory: there's a lot of material available; could be 30 minutes or a full day!

Angel: and if we want a room at TPAC we'll have to make a request to the meeting planners

Ralph: or make it one of the proposed breakout sessions

Jory: I could make some specific suggestions on a de-escalation curriculum
... I've consumed all of these so I'd just need to refresh my memory on where things are
... and make links to specific sections

Angel: could you do that so the rest of us can catch up?

Jory: sure

Group priority and Publication Plan

Angel: please share comments on priorities
... Ombuds training will be a longer-term project
... publication of a new code of conduct is a short-term goal
... what other priorities should we list?

Vlad: the glossary should be a priority
... many things are missing
... many things are present that should not be included
... what's there now is an old version that hasn't gotten much work

<Zakim> ada, you wanted to discuss glossary

Vlad: we've had detailed discussion of every other section of the proposed new code but not this one

Ada: I'd love some help with the glossary
... I know what all the terms in the Code of Conduct mean
... if I were to open an issue on the glossary, it would help if people would put there the terms they need defining

Jeff: let's get more prescriptive about our schedule
... e.g. get a short-term plan done then move to the long-term plan
... we should be thinking about the review schedule for the short term
... we haven't yet had a call for review in the CG
... then get review from the AC and W3M
... and the AB
... the CG doesn't have the authority to publish a new CEPC
... but the CG does have the authority to propose a new CEPC to the AB, AC, and W3M

Angel: great segue
... Tzviya proposed that we have a new CEPC by TPAC
... that would require us to have AB review early in AUgust
... does the CEPC require AC approval?

Jeff: what previously happened was that W3M approved a CEPC
... I don't recall if it had AC review
... then somebody noticed that just because we had decided we had a CEPC it wasn't fully binding because it wasn't in the W3C Process
... so in the 2018 Process update we added an explicit link that it is a requirement to follow CEPC
... so when the AC approved Process 2018 they were implicitly approving the CEPC as well
... it wouldn't be right if we were to change the content of the page linked from the Process without AC review

<Zakim> ada, you wanted to address completement

Jeff: when the next proposed Process changes are sent to the AC, there could be an implicit review of a new CEPC
... are we on track for such a schedule?

Ada: I think we're done once we update the glossary
... is there another section that I have overlooked?

Vlad: I agree in general but the glossary will require a lot of work
... there's certain content that is not applicable to the new code of conduct
... the 'patronizing language' section particularly needs to be fixed

Ada: I'd be glad to work from a list of the terms you feel need work

Vlad: I can open issues to say what needs clarifying and what need not be there

Rachel: we could divide up the document and ask CG participants to look at specific sections

Vlad: the issue discussion would be useful for that

Jeff: another area where I'm not sure if we need something, but we do need a CG decision one way or another:
... do we need guidance in the document on the role of the Team Contact and Chair on de-escalation?
... related to that is the rapid response topic
... we don't have a text proposal for that yet
... we need an explicit consensus on whether we need that or defer to the next rev

Ada: I plan to write the pull request on emergency procedures tomorrow; it will be broad and general

Angel: I'm thinking we leave the code of conduct as it is and produce a separate guidelines document on role of team contact and chairs

Jeff: we could discuss that idea of a separate 'guidelines' document
... not sure what a 'broad and general' emergency procedures text might be
... if it actually helps a person in an emergency situation, that's fine but not sure if "broad and general" will do that

Jory: I'm thinking "here are some phone numbers for emergency services in particular regions"

Angel: we have some general principles in the code of conduct and more detail in "best practices"
... it feels more reasonable to me to include detail in a separate practices document

Jeff: in this round it would be OK to defer detailed procedures to the next round
... but I'm less comfortable putting description of roles into a guidelines document

Angel: we can make the points of contact clear in the code of conduct

<jeff> [I've been talking about Issue #41 --> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/41]

Ada: is there scope for the document to be edited in the future?
... or is this final for this year?
... these codes evolve over time; I wouldn't want us to be stuck with 2019 thinking in 2025

<jeff> Ralph: @@@
<jeff> ... I'm concerned that we have not done a full review of the document
<jeff> ... we need to have a more comprehensive review before this can go forward
<jeff> ... @@@some other points

<Vlad> +1 to comprehensive review

Angel: I'll open a new issue on the publication plan
... I'll volunteer to work on a list of terms for the glossary from the perspective of a non-English speaker

<jorydotcom> thanks Angel !!

<Rachel> thanks Angel!!!

Angel: our next call will be in 2 weeks; 8 August, at the same time

[adjourned]