W3C

- DRAFT -

SV_MEETING_TITLE

08 Aug 2019

Attendees

Present
jeff, jorydotcom, Vlad, Nigel, Angel, ada, Judy, Ralph(last_half), Ralph, Rachel, Wendy
Regrets
Chair
Angel
Scribe
Judy, nigel

Contents


ombuds training materials review

<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?

TPAC schedule

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.

Pull requests

Pull request: Review and merge open 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.

Group priority and Publication Plan

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

Summary of Action Items

[NEW] ACTION: Angel and Jory to find a slot and venue for ombus training onTPAC2019
 

Summary of Resolutions

[End of minutes]

Minutes manually created (not a transcript), formatted by David Booth's scribe.perl version 1.154 (CVS log)
$Date: 2019/08/08 15:07:36 $

Scribe.perl diagnostic output

[Delete this section before finalizing the minutes.]
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]