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

Issue Review

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

-- #69 --

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

-- #71 --

<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?

#71 diff

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

-- #62 --

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

-- #53 --

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

-- #43 --

<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

-- #42 --

<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

-- #40 --

<angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/40

AnQi: #40 "no need for Glossary" can be closed, right?

Vlad: yes

-- #34 --

<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

Next meeting

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]