<tzviya> Meeting: PWE

<jorydotc_> be there in 5!

<Ralph> present= Vlad

<Ralph> Vlad: Regrets

<Ralph> ... I did reach out to Ada per my action from last meeting

<Ralph> ... she said once she is back from vacation she'll get to reviewing issues and pull requests

<Ralph> ... I told her the result of the 10 October discussion

<Ralph> ... I have an unplanned conflict for this meeting today and can't stay

<Ralph> Angel: Welcome back Tzviya!

<Judy> Welcome back, Tzviya!

<Ralph> ... we are going through our issues

<Ralph> ... and look at our timeline

Timeline

<Ralph> Angel: we should be able to resolve issues and have a stable version for review

<Ralph> ... with Team and W3M review before the end of 2019

<Ralph> .. AC review early in 2020

<Ralph> Judy: we do need to keep working on the issues to get to a stable version for review

<Ralph> ... I'm worried about some of the things that need to happen as well

<Ralph> ... Jory gave a presentation to the Chairs meeting at TPAC about training

<Ralph> ... there seems to be strong interest from those Chairs to have training

<Ralph> ... another priority we need to put on a timeline is to have training materials available and also do training

<Ralph> ... materials people can look at themselves as well as [scheduled] training

<Ralph> ... another missing piece is procedures to use when issues do come up

<Ralph> ... as well as pulling-in additional ombuds and getting ombuds training in place

<Ralph> ... we don't have work schedules for any of these yet

<Ralph> Angel: I generally agree that these trainings are important

<Ralph> ... things on our place: 1) finish revision, 2) training, 3) making ombuds procedures consistent with our recommendations

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about CEPC status

<Ralph> Tzviya: thanks for letting me take some leave

<Ralph> ... I completely agree with Judy

<Ralph> ... the biggest issue that remains outstanding appears to be the glossary

<Ralph> ... that work is in progress

<Ralph> ... so I'm not sure we need as much time to get a draft

<Ralph> ... we could have a review draft in December

<Ralph> ... and work on the procedures in January

<Ralph> ... I heard great feedback on Jory's TPAC presentation

<Ralph> Angel: the draft is almost done but we have some issues to close and the glossary before we're ready for wide review

<Ralph> Jory: one outstanding task on the glossary that Rachel and I took last time was to go through and get some definitions squared in a short time

<Ralph> ... I still have that action

<Ralph> ... on training plan: one thing we'd hoped to do but ran out of time before TPAC was to provide some session

<Ralph> ... an alternative to an in-person session would be a webinar on conflict de-escalation

<tzviya> +! to agile

<Ralph> ... how does the group feel about offering those on an agile/iterative basis rather than coming up with a complete program first?

<Ralph> Angel: do you have target dates?

<Ralph> Jory: early January perhaps; avoid the holidays

<Ralph> Jeff: happy to hear Tzviya's time estimate

<Ralph> ... in the context of other activities: the AB is thinking about Process 2020

<Ralph> ... they really want to get that done in the [northern hemisphers] spring

<Ralph> ... the Process has a normative dependency on CEPC

<Ralph> ... so it would be highly desireable if when the AC gets Process 2020 for review there is also a CEPC update

<Ralph> ... we don't have much time until December

<Ralph> ... we have to send a PWE CG Call for Consensus to send a review draft

<Ralph> Angel: is it worth the effort to have the AB start to look at the document? The majority of it is almost done

<jorydotcom> +1 that would be a good idea

<Ralph> Jeff: if the CG thinks the document is almost done it's certainly reasonable to give the AB a heads-up

<Ralph> ... but I would be reluctant to ask either the AB or the CG to do formal review

<Ralph> ... before the PWE CG has completed a Call for Consensus

<Ralph> Angel: I agree it's too early to send an official review request

<Ralph> ... but invite them if they want to give any feedback now

<Ralph> ... is the group OK with me sending a heads-up now to the AB and to W3M?

<Ralph> Tzviya: there are a lot of pull requests with significant content and a lot of embedded comments in the draft

<Ralph> ... I think we had sent a message to both AB and W3M before I went on leave

<Ralph> Jeff: and Angel presented at the AC meeting

<Ralph> Angel: I did, but only received feedback from one person

<Ralph> Judy: I suggest that we give ourselves a week to look over the document, especially as Tzviya is just back

<Ralph> ... give her time to look more closely at the status of this

<Ralph> ... I like Jory's iterative training proposal

<Ralph> ... and doing the de-conflicting / de-escalation topic earlier

<Ralph> ... my recent experience with trying to prepare AC meeting materials; we didn't come close to have any training ready

<Ralph> ... though what Jory did present was great

<Ralph> ... I want us to be really confident that we have materials ready

<Ralph> ... if we take an iterative training approach we should message it carefully so people know that there will be more topics

<Ralph> ... there's risk that people view our work as only about reducing bullying but there are other aspects of CEPC that pepole need to be trained on later

<Ralph> Jory: I wholly agree that the messaging needs to be clear that this is about providing something, getting feedback, and rolling out more over time as we discover what people need

<Ralph> ... 1 hour of training is not enough for everything

<Ralph> ... the webinar piece would be a little easier as we don't have to worry about space

<Ralph> ... space was the larger factor at TPAC; there was a lot of uncertainty about whether there would be a meeting room and when the session could fit into the schedule

<Ralph> ... I also suggest that this group consume the materials before we present it to others

<Ralph> Judy: could we assign point people for each area?

<Ralph> ... can we sort out people to get timelines together?

<Ralph> Tzviya: Ada has been the point person on the document itself. She will be back on Monday. Jory is the point person on training.

<Ralph> ... we need to sort out what's going on for the ombuds

<Ralph> ... Angel and I will have a call to sort out some of the management stuff

<Ralph> ... I'd like us to agree on at least a preliminary timeline

<Ralph> ... I'd love for us to agree to have a PWE CG consensus draft by end of year

<Ralph> ... that's 6 weeks but includes some holidays

<Ralph> ... Ada and I can work with AnQi on a timeline for AB and W3M

<Ralph> ... does that sound reasonable?

<jeff> Wfm.

<Ralph> <ralph> +1

<Ralph> Angel: perfect for me

<Ralph> Judy: clear and reasonable

<jorydotcom> +1

<Ralph> Angel: we still need to find a lead to make the ombuds procedures consistent with our new CEPC

<Ralph> Jeff: I don't know where we are on procedures

<Ralph> ... I thought we were totally reviewing ombuds people, possibly removing some Team and adding some non-Team

<Ralph> ... have we done that?

<Ralph> ... or is the intention to defer it to the next version?

<Ralph> ... this may be hard to do in 6 weeks

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say I think that the Ombuds selection & orientation is a separate topic from the CEPC procedures and would move better as separate sub-topics

<Ralph> Judy: I think these would progress best as separate but coordinated projects

<Ralph> ... I'd like to have more conversation with [external body] and see if we might outsource something

<Ralph> ... I think the procedures could be one of the most challenging pieces unless we get advising

<Ralph> ... this piece needs to be knitted back with whatever we decide on ombuds

<Ralph> ... the procedures is the part I most worry about accomplishing in a short timeframe

<Ralph> ... perhaps between now and the next meeting it might be reaonsable for one or two point people to look at the minimum essential tasks and propose what would be reasonable timelines for each

<Ralph> Tzviya: agree with Judy that working on ombuds simultaneously is reasonable and that we won't get it done quickly

<Ralph> ... I think it's OK to have ombuds on a separate timeline

<Ralph> ... but it's crucial that we do act on it

<Ralph> ... we're only talking about the CEPC document in the 6 weeks; the procedures document will be later

<Ralph> Jeff: fine to proceed on CEPC and not change the procedures

<Ralph> ... but let's not lull ourselves into viewing the procedures as a separate document

<Ralph> ... the procedures document is linked from the CEPC

<Ralph> ... it's only separate in that it has its own URL

<Ralph> ... but the documents are closely linked

<Ralph> ... if the decision is not to focus on the procedures document or on the ombuds, that's ok but I encourage the chairs to provide a little bit of a roadmap when they call for review of the CEPC document

<Ralph> ... give people who might be concerned about the procedures the information that we're not ignoring it

<jeff> scribenick: jeff

Judy: We need to be clear on terminology
... two docs called Procedures
... one doc is linked to CEPC
... I'm talking about what the Ombuds people do
... Nigel's concerns
... consistent procedure

<Judy> https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/#Procedures

Judy: ^^ is public facing procedures
... second document more complex
... roadmap is important
... Ombuds piece fairly urgent

<Ralph> scribenick: Ralph

<jeff> Jeff: I was refering to both docs

Jeff: my concern about the procedures was that we don't have a plan to update them in the timeframe we're talking about

<jeff> ... we don't have a plan for either in this time frame.

<jeff> Angel: We have a plan

<jeff> ... December group review

<jeff> buzz buzz buzz

<jeff> Angel: January broader review and approval

Angel; we're targeting a stable version for review by December with AC review in January

scribe: and first Webinar in January
... we will be acting on the ombuds and procedures issues but on different paths
... is that the groups' consensus?

Tzviya: I agree but have a question
... the section on reporting in the draft CEPC does mention ombuds
... is it your opinion, Jeff, that we cannot use a reference to the current ombuds?

Jeff: we have a current list
... and though people have expressed issues with that, the current people are acting as ombuds
... I don't see an issue with [citing the current list]

<jeff> Thanks for disconnecting me

<jeff> in midsentence

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to finish my response to Tzviya once others join

Jeff: on reporting section 4
... I don't think there's any issue citing the current list of ombuds
... the incident that raised the issue was one where it wasn't clear that either the team contact, the ombuds, or the chairs knew what to do
... I doubt that the current text fulfills what the individual was looking for in that situation
... in practice, what do you actually do when you're in a situation?
... we may want to say somewhere, perhaps in the cover letter, that in terms of both reporting and getting help we still have a big hole
... and that hole won't be addressed in the next month

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask about https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/#Reporting and to

Tzviya: I agree
... we don't have the information yet
... there's a wikipedia page on how to contact local law enforcement [in various countries]
... that's a step in the right direction in terms of actually finding the help I need
... we are well aware that this needs to be much more robust

Judy: there are other inter-personal issues that aren't of the "go to law enforcement" variety but still need help

Tzviya: can we meet on 5 December?

Judy: probably
... how about next week?

Tzviya: won't work for me or Jeff as we're just off the AB f2f
... I'll send a scheduling email
... let's tentatively plan to meet next on 5 December

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/angle/angel/
Present: Judy Ralph angel jeff jorydotcom tzviya
Found ScribeNick: jeff
Found ScribeNick: Ralph
Inferring Scribes: jeff, Ralph
Scribes: jeff, Ralph
ScribeNicks: jeff, Ralph
Agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2019Nov/0004.html
WARNING: Could not parse date.  Unknown month name "11": 2019-11-14
Format should be like "Date: 31 Jan 2004"

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.)