<Vlad> Sorry I really can't do it
<Judy> scribe: Judy
Jory: Two materials to share; 1 some training materials for conflict resolution, and some info on Ombuds role from IOA
<nigel> resources for ombuds
Jeff: which training materials?
<Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/59
Jory: the 2nd batch, on
ombudsrole, is from IAO... I propose that the group read a
shortened section of 3 items
... title of issue is informational. No action to take as of
now.
<jorydotcom> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/59
<jorydotcom> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/60
Jory: Assuming people haven't had a chance to review yet (various acks in IRC & on phone to confirm)
<jorydotcom> https://gist.github.com/jorydotcom/a4773ba396655b2f7f094d5569f60f4d
Jory: Next, over to the de-escalation training materials, and to come up with a curriculum...
the proposal is to do an interactive workshop in ~60 min
scribe: model of de-escalation
called the @@@ model
... learn abt typical escalation path, and then how to
de-escalate from that
... Jeff your opinion on presenting this in the context of TPAC
in Sept, or another time
Jeff: By "presenting this" can
you be more specific about what, and when in what portion of
TPAC? Would be good in front of membership in TPAC?
... Could be relevant for Chairs meeting -- so, probably yes,
but let's get clearer on the question
<nigel> +1 to Chair's meeting
<nigel> scribe: nigel
<Judy> Jory: Would like to offer it as an opt-in training
Jory: Good idea to let folks know
it's a resource that could be available
... Could offer a breakout
... Start somewhere.
Jeff: I was brainstorming but
then Nigel +1ed the idea of a Chair's meeting, a Lunch this
year,
... so two things: deescalation in general and the techniques
in particular.
... Asking Angel and Jory what the right duration slot is in
the meeting
... Separate breakout on the Wednesday, I don't manage that, so
we can figure that out on the day
Angel: I hear concern about
breakout sessions and maybe not everyone can join if topic is
in a parallel session.
... Going for the largest opportunity to have the Chairs and
also the Ombusdpersons from W3 Staff would be good.
... I will work with Jory on this.
... Jory, an action for both of us?
Jory: Yes, sure, that makes sense
Judy: We do want to get information to people sooner rather than later but also to land well so there is not
<Angel> ACTION: Angel and Jory to find a slot and venue for ombus training onTPAC2019
Judy: push back against it later.
Eventually everyone in a responsible position wrt PWE to have
training on deescalation
... and other kinds of issues. TPAC is very soon and we might
not be ready to have something comprehensive,
... I like the idea of taking an action to find an appropriate
venue.
... A breakout session could be useful as a small pilot to
learn from
... to develop something better later after TPAC.
... Trying to balance ramping up with training that we're
pulling together and having a testing opportunity with a small
group
... and then delivering it more comprehensively later.
Jory: Agree with that
wholly.
... I've reached out to groups that do management training to
ask if they have someone I could do a dry run with
... but haven't heard back yet.
... A 1 hour workshop is 6-10 hours prep. Then the opportunity
to run through it. I don't want to miss out on the opportunity
at TPAC.
... It would feel like a missed opportunity not to take
advantage of time available then even if its not perfect.
Judy: Q for Angel about the
action to find a good venue. I didn't know if you meant another
venue at TPAC or something
... later on. My impression is it might best happen with a
small pilot at TPAC then something else.
... Q2 for Jory, based on people with experience doing this, is
it realistic to do this remotely? A tele-seminar of some
kind.
... Avoid having to be physically together.
Jory: Ideally a 1st run with a
present group of folks to inform the learning checks etc and
how well they are going.
... More immediate feedback about how concepts land.
... Then after curriculum tweaks, can make telepresentation
tweaks.
... Current draft workshop includes small group activities.
Harder to do in a teleconference setting, have to think
... of some other activity for that.
Judy: Angel's interesting clarification, should we brainstorm this in TPAC in addition to a breakout on Wednesday?
Jory: I'm flexible, we could
offer it more than once in the week, or a shorter version if we
only have 15 minutes with the Chair group,
... I'll work with what we've got.
Angel: Maybe look at the options
we have and find the most suitable ones.
... We might have breakout sessions, Chair meeting, an evening,
I don't know if we can steal other time during TPAC week.
... Risk that some Chairs don't go to breakout session.
... Evenings: Tue and Wed have dinners and some groups might
have their own dinners. Friday not a good idea.
... Maybe we could use some public spaces in the venue to
gather together for 1 hour as a pilot project.
Judy: Curious from Jeff about the Chair agenda, if we could be ready in time. Is it fully loaded?
Jeff: I don't have a fully loaded
agenda but the entire Chair's meeting is 60-90 minutes and I
wouldn't really feel that
... comfortable having the actual workshop during that time
because it would mean nothing else could be covered.
... A lot of the Chair meeting time is supposed to be open loop
for people. Having only 15 minutes left can't be cut
short.
... The idea of an afternoon breakout and pre-advertising in
the Chairs luncheon could be the best option.
... At TPAC every moment conflicts with something including the
evenings.
... There isn't any free time!
... I think to pilot the workshop a breakout might be the
best.
... Trying to remember - when is the Chairs luncheon?
Angel: Leave it for me and Jory to schedule.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask how packed the Chair meeting agenda already is? and to
Judy: Re a breakout session,
usually you only get a small number of people more oriented on
the topic.
... If we can specifically promote it ahead of time, if the
Chairs lunch timing works out, could be useful to get the word
out.
... Worth trying.
Angel: If I understand correctly, if there's a chance to promote it, you're okay with a breakout session Judy?
Judy: Just my opinion, and thinking through how other people react.
Angel: Any other comments about the training?
Jeff: Just confirmed Chair's
lunch is on Wednesday so if you want to use the breakout
sessions the Chair's lunch could
... have a teaser, then schedule for an afternoon breakout not
a morning one!
<jorydotcom> ty jeff1
<jorydotcom> !
<Judy> scribe: Nigel
<Ralph> [Ralph arrives]
<Judy> nigel: I support the idea of not considering this an official version of the training. Need something that we can re-deliver the training to new people that come in
<Judy> ...important that it's not portrayed as a one-off thing
<Judy> Jory: I don't consider it one-off either
Angel: Thank you for the input, now I'd like to invite Ada to share progress on pull requests.
Ada: Thank you, three PRs on
GitHub, 2 on reporting, open almost 2 weeks.
... I addressed the comments that were there and happy to merge
if everyone else is.
... The other I'm still working on and it's for the terms in
the Glossary.
... I've just started and am working through them. Welcome
contributions for other descriptions of terms if people feel
confident.
<ada> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/62
Ada: A couple of terms from issue
62, which I wasn't sure which one to go for. I thought they
might be auto-corrects of other terms.
... Suggestions please. One is for "consensus" but could be an
auto-correction of "consent" so I've gone ahead and put
... Consent in.
... The other is "transparency" which again might be an
auto-correct, wondering if it is for "transphobia" or do we
need both?
... Transparency is in the document.
Angel: Ada, about "consensus" I
remember that is in the Process document. New people may need
to know there should
... be a link to that. That's why I put it there, not an
auto-correct.
Ada: Thank you so much, I'll include that too.
<jorydotcom> I apologize, something very pressing is suddenly popping up and I need to drop. thanks everyone for the discussion today and I look forward to following up on email / GH
Angel: I don't know if there's a W3C definition of transparency, and think it would be clear to explain what that means.
Ada: Thank you I'll make that clear too.
Vlad: I just added a comment on
GitHub. Trying to specify a set of rules about what should be
in the Glossary or not.
... In general I think terms not used in the CoC should not be
defined. The glossary is only for that document not the
... rest of W3C. Extending it further would diminish the
relevance.
... Speaking specifically about Consensus. I don't think our
meaning of consensus differs from the dictionary.
... It's not useful.
<Ralph> +1 to limiting the glossary to terms used in the Code
Judy: I hear the point that Vlad
is making, I'm unclear how many of these are not in the
document, I assumed they were drawn from the document.
... Question if we are defining terms not essential to the
document.
... Second we have a mix of audiences that we want to
understand.
... Some people may be very familiar with the terms of
diversity but not W3C terms like consensus and
transparency
... so I would lean towards having definitions available but
don't feel strongly.
... When I look through the list there are some terms not used
a lot and maybe should be explained better in the
material.
... For example "reverse-isms" should be defined better rather
than defined in the Glossary. Some terms seem like
... composite discussion items. For example "enforcers of this
code" doesn't need a term.
... Those are not strong feelings, I don't know how much debate
we want on this glossary list, I can go either way.
<ada> (here is the PR https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/66)
<Judy> scribe: Judy
Nigel: we could link to
cannonical places where things are defined
... but for instance for consensus, I think that W3C has a
specific approach that is worth calling it.
<Ralph> [+1 to linking to the authoritative definition in some other W3C document rather than including a definition]
<scribe> scribe: Nigel
Ada: Regarding terms that are not
CoC specific could we create a separate process glossary
document?
... Already a lot of terms that apply directly to the CoC in
the glossary and I don't want to have too much
information
... there especially if it is not specifically related to that
document.
<Ralph> W3C Glossary and Dictionary
Ada: Some of the terms I use only
once like. "reverse-isms", I can see they would need to be
better described in the document
... and there are examples where the way it is written in the
document explain it just as well as the glossary.
... For this specific reverse-isms example it is a term we need
to use to people can easily refer to it and can get more
... detail - that one is in the pull request already, I've
begun putting it in there. I also explain why "cis-phobia"
and
... reverse racism are absent, in that they are not things and
should not be defined.
... I've taken racism a step further than the dictionary,
demarcating racial discrimination from racism, and going a
bit
... further than we can do in the text without defaulting to a
different document entirely. That was my reasoning there.
Vlad: Thank you, again I'm
responding to Nigel with clarifying comment. My specific use of
Consensus as an example
... was two-fold. One, that it is not used in the Code and so
in general such terms should not be in the glossary.
... It's just one particular chapter about the same document.
Whatever is not used should not be part of the glossary.
... The second rule is if a term is used that has the exact
same definition as in the dictionary then it does not make
sense
... to duplicate that, but if our use does differ then yes we
absolutely should put it in the glossary.
... Hopefully that clarifies what I meant earlier.
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say would worry about creating another document for expanded glossary, when we do not have a usable procedures document yet
Angel: Thank you for the explanations.
Judy: I wanted to respond to
Ada's comment - I am sympathetic to wanting to expand our
resources on explaining
... terms and issues. My question is a matter of
prioritisation.
... Our PWE work is going ahead with a CoC and training but we
don't have usable procedures.
... What we drafted a few years ago needs a lot of work to
bring it forward and it is an important part of dealing
... with issues that come up. I'm hoping our priority can
switch to procedures unless we can do both, at some point
soon,
... rather than adding more depth to the terms and definitions.
I'm not saying they're not needed.
Ada: In response to that, I'm of
the opinion that the Glossary should be non-blocking to what we
do.
... There's already a note saying it is not for reviewing, and
it is okay for us to submit the document for review with
... an incomplete glossary and continue working on it as it
goes through the review process.
... It might need to evolve as more people see the document and
are unfamiliar with new terms.
<Angel> +1 to ada
Ada: We should be able to move on to procedures and I can work on this in parallel.
Judy: Thank you
Ada: Regarding Procedures, is this something I've forgotten about and need to do or have we not yet discussed it in the group?
Judy: It's a separate document
and there were various drafts of it over the years. Maybe a
year and a half or more ago
... there was a draft with substantial problems. I think it was
a team-side document. It is not supposed to be part of
... the Code but it is a necessary part of W3C knowing what to
do when things happen.
... There's an emergency procedures document evolving
separately, I don't know its status.
... Ralph or Jeff may be able to clarify the more recent piece,
I was looking for a link earlier and couldn't see one.
Ada: Thanks
Ralph: There's been a draft
proposal for emergency activation of Ombuds or W3C leaders
which has not yet successfully
... met W3M review.
... One tiny piece of it is included in both the current CoC
and the new draft this group has been working on, which
is
... the email address to get to all Ombudspeople, but that's a
small part of the request.
Angel: Ok, Ada, any other topics re the pull requests?
Ada: Not hugely, any feedback, or
any further pull requests into that branch, any help would be
useful. There are a lot
... of definitions to work out. After this call I am going to
push the merge button on the other two PRs.
Angel: Tzviya said she wanted the new CoC to be published before TPAC but I'm not sure if that's realistic.
<Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/65
Angel: I've put an initial
publication plan on GitHub and want feedback to see if it is
feasible to do that or if we want to
... go slower and prioritise quality.
... The target plan is Group Consensus in early Sep,
... then W3M review mid Sep, then
... if good something to present in TPAC,
... then AC review in Oct/Nov
... Is that feasible?
Ada: If we're not presenting to AC at TPAC then who?
Angel: We got the chance to talk about progress without introducing the draft as being ready, in the AC meeting.
Ada: Great.
Jeff: Apologise I have to run,
briefly, I believe that we have not yet told the PWE CG that we
have a draft ready for CG
... review so that has to be the first step and we have to
complete the draft and send it for CG review for several
weeks.
... Only at that point can we start taking it beyond to say we
have consensus.
... We need to stop off at W3M and the AB. I feel like there
isn't time to do it before TPAC.
... Maybe Ralph you can comment a little more about an
appropriate overall review schedule to get to the right
maturity levels
... and group inputs?
Ralph: Step 1 is formal call to the CG list, could be in parallel with W3M and AB being invited to comment.
<Judy> scribe: Judy
Ralph: We're being encouraged to
be formal with our changes of W3C Process-level material
... We would be expected to announce a wide-review draft
... Not sure whether it would require a formal AC review, but
that's an open question
... I would encourage this CG to assume that a reasonably
formal review process would be expected
Angel: If that is the case then I
don't think it's realistic to publish by TPAC
... and so we should think how we want to use our time
... next call would be August 22
<Ralph> [a final review draft might be possible, if the CG were to reach consensus that it had completed its work]
JB: Jeff, Ralph and I would have conflicts for that
Angel: I will send out a Doodle poll for our next meeting but might be the 29th of August instead
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/@@@/some training materials for conflict resolution/ Succeeded: s/shoudl/should/ Succeeded: s/We god/We got/ Present: jeff jorydotcom Vlad Nigel Angel ada Judy Ralph(last_half) Ralph Rachel Wendy Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Found Scribe: nigel Inferring ScribeNick: nigel Found Scribe: Nigel Inferring ScribeNick: nigel Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Found Scribe: Nigel Inferring ScribeNick: nigel Found Scribe: Judy Inferring ScribeNick: Judy Scribes: Judy, nigel ScribeNicks: Judy, nigel WARNING: No meeting title found! You should specify the meeting title like this: <dbooth> Meeting: Weekly Baking Club Meeting 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: angel jory 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]