<scribe> scribenick: Ralph
<Angel> https://www.w3.org/2019/09/17-ac-minutes.html#item07
AnQi: see ^^ minutes of AC
meeting
... I received some feedback
... specifically that the only way to make Code of Conduct
binding is to link it to Process
... do we think our current language and description is enough
for such a document?
Judy: my impression is that the
current version of CEPC _is_ linked
... and our goal is to get an updated version of it approved
and therefore become the linked version
... we still have the issue of procedures to back the
CEPC
... we haven't had an approved set of procedures, at least at a
high level
... this is an important part of making this all work
... I think the CG still has this on its agenda
Nigel: to the question "is the
current draft good enough to link from Process?"
... section 4 is especially relevant
... looking at those words, it at least needs a proofreading
pass
... but more importantly it doesn't do the job it needs to do
about setting out how mediation works in the context of a group
and the escalation process
... I have been personally involved in such an escalation
... it became quickly clear that the ombud is not there to make
a judgement but to help the parties to reconcile and to
understand a way forward to work with each other
... effectively, to de-escalate
... there's work already done
... "you may choose to raise issues with the chair of a group"
is OK but doesn't make clear the overall goal, which is to do
the mediation
... the extreme step is a possibility but should be the
exception rather than the rule
... it feels as the text isn't doing the job it needs to do
Angel: the current version helps
a lot with behavior guidance
... it provides specific behavior and guidance
... but the feedback on linking to Process made me think that
the document should be separateed into two
... leave the detailed specification of requirements to a
separate document
... this might help the status of the binding document
... should we consider this?
Judy: there's a missing piece;
there was intended to be a set of procedures for how to handle
an issue when it comes in
... there may be situations where the Ombuds are doing the best
they can, but without formal procedures
... I wouldn't draw a conclusion from a specific instance
... at some point soon we need to come back to drafting
procedures
... previous drafts had multiple significant issues
... we should be careful about using what we have now as
addressing procedural stuff
... I hope Jory can give a review of the Chair's lunch
discussion
... she presented some proposals that I think were
enthusiastically received
Jeff: we as a Community Group
need to make a strategic decision about how we want to move
this work forward
... Nigel and Judy are correct that we haven't made enough
progress on procedures -- how things actually work in a
situation
... but I also think our existing CEPC is far outdated and what
we have now in our draft is superior
... we have a choice to move our Code forward and defer work on
procedures to later
... or we could work on the part that is missing and do it all
together
... thinking about these two choices, we have to consider how
much effort is required and whether we have the people with
time
... if it will take us 2 years to do procedures and that delays
the superior Code, I think that would be a mistake
... if we have people willing to do the second piece quickly
then I'd prefer that approach
Jory: given these options and considering the bandwidth of the group, I tend to prefer the first option; a better definition with an imperfect plan
Judy: I am very interested in
working on the procedures part
... wishfully thinking, I'd hope we can do it in 4-5
months
... maybe a third option is to start getting approval of the
updated CEPC and have a good plan to get the procedures in
queue and hold ourselves to it
... so that it would not be delayed too much after the CEPC
update is in progress
Vlad: comparing both versions
now, the new draft does have more language on procedures
... the new version is a significant improvement in all
regards
... it would be a good solution to start uing the new Code asap
and continue to refine procedures
... and whatever aspects we need to address
AnQi: I'm hearing we're close to
a consensus to move the current work forward
... any objections?
Judy: first, a question
... does Nigel think the current approach is implicit in the
language? if so, I'd object
<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to ask what is meant by "push the work forward" - does that mean promote it as good enough, or do more work on it?
Nigel: I don't think it does say;
it's unclear
... it doesn't state whether mediation is likely or even
possible
... it just says an escalation is made
... the reporting section now reads as if the situation were
going to be handed to a third party to decide
... that might be what happens in some cases, but isn't what
actually happened in my case
AnQi: by "push the work forward"
I meant "get it ready to be approved"
... and leave the procedural discusison for later
... the current CEPC is already linked from Process
<Angel> https://www.w3.org/2019/Process-20190301/
Nigel: so the question is whether this draft is a good enough improvement or is there more work we need to do first?
Ada: I am concerned whetherthe
Ombuds are sufficiently well-equipped to deal with some of the
issues that might arise
... e.g. harassment
... might there need to be different people; Ombuds for
mediating technical disagreements and others for dealing with
harassment or bullying?
... or training for the Ombuds on dealing with harassment or
bullying?
... I'm not sure if this needs to go in the CPEC itself; it
might just be some training
Vlad: again, comparing the two
versions, the reporting section starts with "If you have an
issue, raising it to the Ombuds may be a way ..."
... that does read as if Ombuds might be preferable but it does
state later that not every issue needs to [start with] an
Ombuds
... the current version is completely silent on
procedures
... it would be perfectly fine to decide to release this
version and then work on the next
... but what we have ia a definite improvement over what we
have now
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to say that "escalation" actually is possible.
Jeff: it's not accurate that we
don't do escalation
... an Ombuds can decide that facilitation is the best first
approach
... but they don't always need to choose that
... ultimately the Process does say the W3C Director can ban
someone from participating
... so there is an escalation possibility
... however, it is correct that this is underspecified
... and probably the Ombuds are under-trained
... so there's more to do
... there are also inherent limitations
... e.g. our authority is limited to what we do
Ralph: I with concur Ada's concern that we need more training for our Ombuds
<Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/34
Ralph: I hope that this CG can continue the work it started to idenetify training resources
Nigel: #34 is an example of what
we've been discussing
... our current draft does a better job of saying you _can_
escalate to an Ombuds
... however, it both gives and takes; it doesn't say what
happens then
... it doesn't say anything about privacy; what will happen
with the information after an escalation
... it might be off-putting for someone to go to an Ombuds if
they don't know how the information will be handled
... and the Ombuds don't have the guidance they need on how to
handle the information
... I'm close to thinking we need to address this before moving
forward
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on training
<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to say I think issue 34 needs to be fixed before taking the document forward
Judy: previously we've noted that
the Ombuds selection process needs more consideration
... also the training
... we had been exploring the possibility of outsourcing some
of the Ombuds role
... outsourcing may be useful in the circumstance where an
Ombuds doesn't have sufficient training
... maybe there are some issues we must address before moving
this draft forward
... but I'd like to have a timeline
<nigel> +1 to timeline and tasks
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to generalize Nigel's point about issue #34
Jeff: similar point; we have 33 open issues
<jeff> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues
Jeff: typically at this stage we'd decide which of those issues we want to address before we get to "CEPC 2020"
<nigel> +1 to triaging the issues for what we must do before next doc release
Jeff: it might be useful for the
chairs to label issues as candidates for CPEC 2020 and let the
rest of the CG weigh-in
... that would expose a bit of the schedule issue I'm concerned
about
<Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues
Jeff: if we find that 32 of the
issues must be decided before the next CEPC, it will take us
much longer
... this methodology will help us decide what we must get done
before we ship the next version
AnQi: let's try to reach a
conclusion on this topic
... we'll look at which issues we need to close before sending
a version for approval
... I will try to label the issues but I'd like the group's
feedback
... I welcome someone joining me on the labelling task
... to get it done in 2 weeks
AnQi: we had decided to
accellerate our telecons to try to have a proposal by
TPAC
... we didn't meet that goal
... but should we continue biweekly calls or return to monthly
calls?
Ada: I prefer biweekly; it helps getting more rapid feedback
Jory: me too; not only for feedback but also for accountability
Vlad: I don't mind biweekly but this particular time conflicts with several other things, including the TTWG call
Nigel: TTWG starts after this ends except when it extends to two hours in which case it begins an hour earlier
Vlad: regarding the issues, we
definitely should prioritize them
... anything labeled as "editorial" can be addressed very soon;
it's a matter of finalizing the language
... some issues labeled "help wanted" can be candidates for
future release
... it should be easy to mark issues as easy to address or
postponable
Jeff: the W3C Advisory Board
meets at this time on the 1st and 3rd Thursday of every
month
... as long as we don't conflict with that, I'm happy to use
this time
... there would have been a conflict for last week
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say prefers bi-weekly, to maintain progress; and the upcoming daylight-savings-swapping-period will probably cause multiple collisions, but those will be done
Judy: I also think we need a work plan so we can push multiple things forward
Vlad: I have some internal events that don't occur every week; it's hard for me to predict when those conflicts might occur
AnQi: would another day of the
week work better?
... Monday, Tuesday or Friday?
Vlad: I don't have any day that
would be an obviously best candidate
... so far I've been able to manage the best I can by choosing
which meeting is the most important at the moment
... I'll adapt as much as I can if people are comfortable with
this time slot
AnQi: I'm hearing biweekly and
will send a doodle on specific dates
... let's keep this time slot and consider whether there might
be a candidate for a better day of the week
Ada: during TPAC I opened an
issue with a PR in the "encouraging behavior" section
... I'd be grateful for feedback
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/71
Vlad: I proposed a
modification
... when I read the proposed paragraph, I felt that being too
blunt was worrisome
... "do it in a sensitive way", not to be too blunt
Ada: I like your proposed rewording
Vlad: i.e. follow our own advice and be sensitive
AnQi: thanks; we're adjourned for today
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/.but/but/ Succeeded: s/am /am very / Succeeded: s/and/any/ Succeeded: s/actually happens/actually happened in my case/ Succeeded: s/an improvement/a good enough improvement/ Default Present: Rachel, ada, Judy, Angel, Nigel, Ralph, jeff, Vlad, jory Present: Angel Judy Nigel Ralph Vlad ada jeff jory Regrets: Rachel Found ScribeNick: Ralph Inferring Scribes: Ralph 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.)[End of scribe.perl diagnostic output]