PWE CG Call -- 10 Oct 2019

<scribe> scribenick: Ralph

TPAC2019 feedback on PWE and discussion on our next steps

<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

Frequency of telecons

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

AOB

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

- DRAFT -

PWE CG Call

10 Oct 2019

Attendees

Contents

TPAC2019 feedback on PWE and discussion on our next steps

Frequency of telecons

AOB

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output