previous 14-Nov

Open Pull Requests

<chaals> [the PRs are all fine by me as they stand…]

Jeff: does the CG have agreement on what we can leave to a future round?

Tzvyia: yes, and many of the issues in the repo are not relevant to CEPC
... the ones Angel has labeled "Decision Needed" are the ones we believe we need to close for this round
... I think a lot of these are closeable easily
... then merging the PRs will get us document text

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/73

<jeff> +1

<chaals> [+1 to merge]

Tzviya: ok to merge?

Ada: +1

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/72

<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/72/7db0c6c...8f96912.html

Tzviya: added text to "Unacceptable behaviour"

Judy: I've heard the term "hidden disability" used more in the US
... "visible" and "hidden"
... but I don't feel strongly

<chaals> [I have heard both, but find invisible clearer and more common in my anecdotal experience]

Judy: ok to leave as is

<chaals> [+1 to merge]

<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/66/46f156a...4fc1ff9.html

Tzviya: #66 edits to the glossary
... Ada's proposal is that we only include in the glossary terms that require context
... so "disability" doesn't need to be defined in our glossary

<chaals> [+1 on not trying to define everything…]

Tzviya: Angel had proposed a long list of terms to be translated
... we found that we were mostly copying text from a dictionary
... we concluded it was absurd for us to write definitions
... so we selected just those terms that require context

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask about "enforcers of this code"

Tzviya: let's leave this for a week for you to review

Jeff: remind me the context in which we used "enforcers of this code"

[[
The enforcers of this Code should prioritise the safety of individuals within marginalised communities over the comfort of others, and reserve the rights not to take further actions on complaints regarding:

]]

-- https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/#code

Ada: this came verbatim from another code of conduct

<chaals> [maybe we should rephrase this so we don't say "enforcer" …]

Jeff: I don't think the Ombuds are "enforcers"
... better to say "The W3C Community"

Tzvyia: drop "The enforcers"

[several]: +1

Tzviya: please review the rest of the glossary by next week
... any volunteers to write the needed six definitions?
... e.g. "mental health" ?
... we need those definitions to be able to call this complete
... did we cut too many terms?

<tzviya> see https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/66#issuecomment-559176989

Jeff: we could work on this forever; it could be helpful to say we've created a glossary of those things we think most need definitions today
... and tell people where to raise other terms they believe should be included in a future version
... so we don't have to go crazy now trying to include every thing

Tzviya: +1

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest s/enforcers/ombuds

issue review

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3A%22Decision+Needed%22

Tzviya: focusing on the Decision Needed issues
... #62 will be solved by the open PR

<chaals> '[+1 to Tviya - close]

Tzviya: #53 was solved a while ago
... #43 goes back to April
... I think we've addressed this but I'll ask Vlad for his confirmation
... #42
... Tzviya: this is the last paragraph if "Expected Behaviour"
... the language is what we have in the document now
... #41
... do we need to clarify this in CEPC or in Procedures?

Jeff: I don't care in which document it is done

Tzviya: I'd love to include it in CEPC but there's a long list of questions and I'm not sure we can finish within our time constraints

Jeff: I hear regular feedback from chairs that they need more on what to do

<ralph> ["what to do" sounds like Procedures]

Jeff: I am uncomfortable that this issue hasn't gotten attention
... it's an important operational thing

Tzviya: the training modules that Jory has been working on will address what chairs are supposed to do

Judy: this is important but also complex
... we should consider broadening this to TF facilitators
... getting people well-trained and well-oriented is important, but also in a way that is clear about the complexities of their own roles
... we should get this sorted out
... but not delay the policy
... could we give this priority for the next version?

Jeff: the emergency contact numbers was the most urgent, so we split that out

Tzviya: yes
... numerous chairs have asked me what they can do about CoC issues

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to take an action to write some text as a proposal

Chaals: I'll write some text

<jeff> Chaals ++

ACTION: Chaals write some text for #41 Role of Chairs

Tzviya: #34 Visibility and retention of CEPC violation assessments
... this is also quite sticky
... but I believe it is moot as we took the text out of the Code
... this goes into Procedures

Judy: right; this isn't the right document

Tzviya: other issues address this topic so I'll close #34
... #32 is completed
... #23 Guidance for when it is appropriate to edit or delete a GitHub comment
... I agree with Vlad's comment in https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/23#issuecomment-561246471

<jeff> +1 to close #23

Tzviya: CEPC is not managing things to this level of detail

Chaals: this has come up on occasion
... it's worth putting some vague advice into "what chairs should do"
... but not make it a hard and fast rule
... I expect I'll include something in my draft for #41

Tzviya: play off of "unacceptable behaviors"
... this might be "deliberate intimidation"
... and helpful to give specific examples
... Jory might consider including "obnoxious GitHub comments" in her training examples

Jeff: generally speaking we like to have public records of the technical conversation available in perpetuity
... the public needs to know how we reach our decisions on certain standards
... there have been cases where people have come back later under "right to be forgotten" and asked for comments to be removed
... we've decided that as they previously agreed to have their comment on the record in perpetuity we would deny such requests
... so we have to be careful not to create new problems

Judy: we need to park this somewhere

Ralph: +1 to park; just remove "Decision Needed"

Tzviya: I'll create a "Defer, with Priority" label
... this will likely fall into a broad category of bullying
... we don't get into the specific level of detail such as editing comments in the document

Judy: it would be useful to communicate that the policies also apply to the tools we use
... cause people to think that the way they use a tool could be causing problems

Tzviya: #15 Can this be be a living document

Chaals: "living document" has become a term of art meaning "it changes whenever you want"
... if we expect people to abide by certain terms then we shouldn't change those terms at random
... people should be able to rely on the Code as reliable and stable

<tzviya> +1 to chaals

Jeff: +1
... living documents work best if there is a well-defined community regularly and actively involved in it
... for CEPC the community is "everyone"
... we can't ask "everyone" to look at it "now"
... so I'm opposed to making this a "living document"

Tzviya: so let's call this a "stable document with updates as needed"

<chaals> [+1 close it]

Tzviya: and close #15
... #8 behavioral norms
... isn't related to CEPC
... the suggestion was to draft some standalone documents
... so skip this issue for now
... #7 Consider proposed revisions to CEPC

<jeff> +1

Tzviya: we've successfully drawn ideas from other documents, so this can be closed
... #3 Add Process to CEPC
... I'd suggested merging the document that provides process with the CEPC document
... I don't think we can do this in the current timeline
... do I recall Jeff suggesting this was not a good idea?

Jeff: some of this is related to procedures for chairs
... perhaps Chaals might consider this in the text he agreed today to draft
... soem of this is about sensitivity

Tzviya: let's label this as "defer"
... it will depend on what happens with the Ombuds program

Jeff: #2 increase number of ombuds
... this wasn't labeled as Decision Needed

<chaals> [+1 we should address #2 and ensure that we have ombuds who are not just W3C senior staff]

Jeff: but I received a comment that our current list of Ombuds is all senior people and some people might be reluctant to bring an issue to that level

Judy: another issue #6

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/6

Jeff: building consensus to get CEPC approved will take a lot of energy
... glad to hear there is off-line work on #6 but

Judy: as part of PWE W3C should provide accessibility for events
... Dom and I are working on a proposal for captioning some meetings
... and hope to bring a proposal to W3M in January
... I've been collecting info on some of the things on the list in #6
... but would hesitate about having it ready to attach to CEPC in December

Tzviya: feel free to add comments to the issue

Jeff: Alexandra Lacourba is our Events Coordinator; she should be involved in the discussion of #6

Next meeting

Tzviya: are you available on the 12th?
... I'll assume we'll meet then

<Judy> jb available 12th and 19th

Tzviya: 19th?

<ada> 19th is okay for me

<ada> yes that is fine

<ada> (already i ncalendar)

Tzviya: adjourned