AnQi: we should concentrate on closing as many issues as we can
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues?page=1&q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen
AnQi: I have labeled them and believe there are about 13 that affect our next draft
AnQi: are you all OK with those I labeled "Decision Needed"?
Vlad: I haven't finished my review; will do so later today
AnQi: 33 open issues total, 13 of them I labeled "Decision Needed"
Judy: I suggest we also take some time to plan a timeline
Jory: we're focusing on the "Decision
Needed" as the ones we must resolve to get a new draft?
... or are these in addition to the "CEPC-editorial" issues?
AnQi: great question
... most of the CEPC-editorial are also "Decision Needed", except for a
very general one [#7]
Jory: we could pull these into a milestone or Project board for easier tracking
Vlad: #69 has a PR and we discussed
at the previous call that this could be merged with a small change I
proposed
... that hasn't yet been done and the comments indicate some confusion
now
<Ralph> [I am OK with Angel's tagging of "Decision Needed"]
AnQi: for #69, how do people feel?
Vlad: we should tell people "be sensitive,
be careful"
... that's what I remember was the outcome of our discussion
Judy: I'm not clear what the exact change is
... "be careful" vs using exact terms feels consistent to me
... MIT used to send alerts to the community with really explicit
subject lines and those were disturbing
... it's important to not throw words around carelessly
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/71
Vlad: see pull request #71
... my suggestion was exactly in line with what Judy said
Judy: thanks; I'm seeing the PR now
... I don't object to that suggestion
AnQi: any objections?
Vlad: are we approving the PR as is or with my suggested modification that Ada supported last time?
Judy: that was my request for clarification as well
Rachel: I agree with Judy, I don't object with that suggestion
Judy: I'm OK with Ada's language; I don't see the alternative proposal
Vlad: see https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/71#issuecomment-538120331
Judy: if you're suggesting adding all that text, I believe it is belaboring the point -- exactly what Ada wanted not to do
Vlad: it's shorter than Ada's PR; I propose
toning it down a little
... it's shorter and a little toned-down
... Ada hasn't yet incorporated that into her PR
Rachel: if the proposal is to replace the
existing language with Vlad's, I prefer to keep the existing language
... the existing language covers what we need; I don't see a need to
replace it
Judy: is it correct that both versions start with "Have empathy when choosing your language"
Vlad: yes; there's a very minor difference
... and now I see that Ada may have incorporated piecese of my
suggestion
Judy: perhaps we should defer this until it is clear what the diff is between the versions and whether the topic has already been resolved anyway.
Vlad: I agree; we need Ada as part of this discussion
<scribe> ACTION: Vlad work with Ada and propose a very concrete resolution to #71
AnQi: #62
Glossary
... are we OK proceeding with what we have and waiting until a
future version for more?
Judy: process suggestion -- there's a lot of
detail to consider on these calls
... can we give an indication of when something is ready for review?
... [for example], between meetings an email saying "this one is done;
please look at it"
AnQi: I like the suggestion to have more email discussion
Judy: let's continue discussing the [Decision Needed] issues
Vlad: there are some empty headers without
text
... I don't think we're anywhere near making a decision on this
AnQi: would someone help Ada to fill-in the
content?
... we can all contribute
Rachel: I am happy to help on this
Jory: me too
AnQi: how long do you want?
... you'll tell us a milestone
Rachel, Jory: ok
Vlad: I'll look at the proposed content and compare to the W3C Glossary
Rachel: we can do that as part of our work
Ralph: I propose we agree that by next (or
next +1) meeting that any glossary entry still missing text is dropped
... that will give us some incentive to find text for those entriese
that someone really doesn't want to drop
... we just agree to drop them rather than extend the deadline
<Rachel> +1
Vlad: ok
RESOLUTION: we'll drop glossary entries that don't have text by a deadline that Jory and Rachel will decide
Judy: it would help me to have a "call the
question" time
... that forces me to focus
... and look at things when they are relatively baked
AnQi: #53
Use "Mediator" instead of "Ombud"
... I don't recall previous conversation on this topic
Judy: I disagree with changing the name
... it may be that what has occurred in the program thus far is more
mediation rather than finding solutions
... if so, it may be due to insufficiencies in sslection and training of
Ombuds
... I believe there is a need for something beyond mediation of disputes
<jeanne> +1 to Judy
Judy: there are multiple issues that have been recorded in the past that don't fit in the category of having people sit down and talk
<Rachel> +1 Judy
Judy: if the conversation is accurate, it is because we have not done all that is needed
<ralph> +1
AnQi: I note that the International Ombuds
organization is the professional one
... "mediator" for non-English speakers brings some troublesome
feelings; it seems to be another thing
[Jeff arrives]
<Vlad> * as someone who is speaking English as a second language, the term "ombud" has never been clear or understandable to me, so from that point of view, mediator is easier to understand
Ralph: I think we should aspire to do the full activities of professional Ombuds, so I do not agree with the change in #53
Judy: there may be other ways to resolve
Nigel's concern than changing the name
... we can followup with him and say that while we do not support a name
change, there may be other changes that would clarify the role
<jorydotcom> +1
AnQi: propose keep the name Ombuds
<ralph> +1
<angel> +1
<Judy> +1 agree with keeping the name Ombuds
<Rachel> +1 to keep
<Vlad> no strong opinion
RESOLUTION: Keep "Ombuds" name
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/43
AnQi: #43 Consider editorial restructuring of the Expected Behavior section
Vlad: not sure; this was an editorial
comment
... I'll discuss with Ada
<ralph> [I'd propose to close this as "no change" if there is not a PR by next meeting]
Vlad: it seemed to me that we talked about
things in multiple places and I had a sense that it would be easier to
read if we consolidated those
... purely editorial
... I can live with the document as is
... I would like to keep this open and chat off-line with Ada to see if
there's something that can be easily and quickly done
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/42
AnQi: #42 - Privacy and confidentiality
... the proposal is to consider some removed text
... not sure if Ada has already done this
<scribe> ACTION: Angel confirm whether the change in #42 has been done
Judy: this will be important to get right
here and to get aligned with procedures
... use confidentiality when needed but not over-using it
... once you've checked with Tzviya, can you let us look at this again?
AnQi: yes
Vlad: Tzviya proposed to replace some text
... I think this was done, or at least partially done
... I see the last paragraph of "Expected Behavior" has Tzviya's
language
Rachel: Tzviya's comment is that text was removed
Judy: I think the IOA materials have some
useful stuff on confidentiality
... but it's not a blanket statment in either direction
... I look forward to Tzviya's clarification
Vlad: the second bullet of Tzviya's comment has been addressed; the text is in the draft
AnQi: I'll clarify with Tzviya
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/40
AnQi: #40 "no need for Glossary" can be closed, right?
Vlad: yes
<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/34
AnQi: #34
Visibility and retention of CEPC violation assessments
... there's a long conversation; do we have consensus?
... not clear in the thread whether there is consensus
Judy: this is a procedural issue and we
don't have sufficient foundation to make a recommendation
... in the CEPC itself we previously recognized it would be difficult to
state exactly what must happen but we needed to give a sense to the
community
... we don't have procedures to do confidentially right
... so we know even less about record retention
... I don't see how we could handle this in the CEPC itself
Jeff: I'd go even beyond what Judy said; if
we had a particular means of retaining records, given that each case is
different that might discourage people from raising issues sometimes
... I added a comment to the GitHub thread
Ralph: procedurally, since none of the three discussants on the GH issue are present right now I don't think this meeting should close the issue even though I agree with Judy and Jeff
Judy: it's useful in each case to figure out
where things should go
... and maybe we shouldn't consider the topic of record retention
... we should start a repo for collecting Procedures issues
... we need a place to park issues and get them on our calendar for the
future
AnQi: can you do that?
Judy: ok
<scribe> ACTION: Judy create a repo for Procedures issues
AnQi: our next meeting is scheduled for the
14th
... I asked that the group look at the remaining "Decision Needed"
issues before then and come prepared to the next meeting
... we all have homework to do
Ralph: have we decided if this meeting is based on EU/US clock or UTC?
AnQi: I am OK to change my local time to keep the US/EU local time the same next meeting
<jorydotcom> thank you all!
[adjourned]