PWE 2019-12-19 -- 19 Dec 2019

<ada> Trying to connect

<ada> I'm not getting audio or video from anyone

<ada> can anyone see me?

https://rakuten.zoom.us/j/9846888394

scribe+

tzviya: Let's get started
... I want to remind everyone that we wanted to circulate the first draft after TPAC
... I am concerned that we are becoming an advertisement for "the perfect is the enemy of the good"
... we are getting caught up in minutae
... we need to get this out
... once it's seen by the AC, AB, W3M there will be feedback
... this is not a step-by-step guide, it's a code of conduct
... let's review the PRs
... I was asked about this at the AB meeting, we have been asked why we haven't finished the work

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/66

tzviya: let's look at the glossary
... we had a missing commit but everything should be there now
... we defined some terms and removed others without definition
... hopefully everyone has had a chance to read through them
... I would like to do a vote to commit this

nigel: There were missing commits and they were pushed

tzviya: Only the one missing one, no definitions

<chaals> [+1 to merging this PR]

nigel: Thanks

tzviya: Let's vote

<ada> +1

<tzviya> +1

<jeff> +1

<nigel> 0 because I didn't realise this was ready to review and haven't done so

tzviya: This can be merged, amazing!
... thanks
... moving along

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/75

tzviya: PR #75
... revising the work from last week and some from this week
... defining the role of the chairs
... stopping something in the immediate term and going to ombuds for advice in the long term
... providing training for what they should and shouldn't do
... they are the first group people go to
... the CoC does not outline every step
... situations are nuanced, we can't outline every step
... I hope everyone has a chance to review this

nigel: So there were some comments made
... with concerns about this expects chairs to do
... and those haven't been resolved
... some suggestions were made in the last day
... there's some things putting chairs into an uncomfortable role
... we need to make a decision on process or no

<Zakim> nigel, you wanted to say there are unresolved comments here

nigel: leaves unstated roles and responsibilities

tzviya: I see your comments
... the last one I see is that we refer to training
... I wonder if you commented on the latest
... removing specific comments from the archive

nigel: I commented on the change of the chairs using the training program

tzviya: You think we should remove it?

nigel: I proposed a different phrasing
... don't refer to the training

tzviya: That rewording works for me

<ada> +1 that's what i was trying to imply

tzviya: any other comments?
... a minor editorial change

<scribe> ... pending the changes, is everyone ok with the adjustment?

nigel: There's another comment on using ombuds vs ombudsperson
... it's weird to use a non-word when we can use ombudsperson

tzviya: Use ombudsperson throughout
... I'm ok with that, thoughts?

<ada> no opnion

<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to address the question of chairs' authority and edeiting archives and to

chaals: I'm in favour of ombudsperson
... I still oppose removing the reference to editing
... I don't want to break consensus

tzviya: I don't want to get into that level of specificity

nigel: I would agree, I'm also uncomfortable but also willing to let it pass

tzviya: chaals can you open an issue to note this

jeff: I was going to agree with nigel and chaals, we need more definition of the role of the chairs, but also should not block the current thing
... I would want to include this in issue #41
... we should tell the stakeholders about our open questions
... make sure that the community knows about this

<nigel> +1

ada: I just want to state I'm of the opinion that the details of the chairs should be in the training and chairs materials
... they're out of scope for the CEPC

+1 to ada

<tzviya> +1 to ada

chaals: I disagree

tzviya: There's no reason to get into this today
... when we make edits there should be evidence

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/master/ReferencesAndResources.md

tzviya: review other CoCs, they do not usually get into these kind of details

<jeff> [suggest postponing this discussion to PWE 2021]

<jeff> +1

<scribe> ... pending Nigel's proposed change are we in agreement to merge?

<tzviya> +1

<ada> +1

<nigel> +1

<chaals> [vote 0 on merging]

tzviya: We're making progress!

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/76

tzviya: editorial nits
... Vlad asked me to remove the bolding, but I added it
... he is asking for me to change the language of the first bullet point because it duplicates previous text
... the gist of this document is treating people with respect
... the acceptable behaviours section reinforces that
... the main thing is being respectful
... any other comments?
... I have no objection to removing the bolding

nigel: I have some sympathy with Vlad, it is in the intro
... one approach might be not to make it a bullet
... and have it in the intro to the section
... all the points are expanded in the list

tzviya: So just remove that first bullet?
... which section

nigel: The first bullet in expected behaviours

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to go back to #75 when we are done with #76

Jeff: why do you want that dropped?

nigel: Oh no, I just don't think it needs to be repeated from the introduction to the document
... either formatted as introductory to the section or remove it

jeff: It's nice to have an introductory statement
... I like it as a statement not a bullet

tzviya: I think that was Vlad's point

nigel: While we're on editorial nits
... if you remove the bolding
... it does not have a full stop after the bolded sections, so we need that

tzviya: It needs a copy edit

<chaals> [have to leave, sorry. I opened issue 77 - https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/77 as a follow-up on #75]

tzviya: ada or I will go in and remove the bullets

jeff: When we voted on 75 you gave it a 0
... I'm uncomfortable with the author giving it a 0

chaals: There's nothing that you don't know about

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on 75

Judy: I wanted to comment
... I wanted a confirmation on how this landed
... I had concerns

<chaals> [I've voted *against* thinkgs I have proposed before, since I have made proposals on behalf of a group who wanted something to work with, rather than being a specific proponent]

Judy: if chairs have authority or responsibility but they're not coupled with training
... chairs would not be prepared with the right knowledge

tzviya: Nigel proposed editorial changes, minimal authority to chairs
... we can go over it tomorrow when we speak

Judy: Maybe in the future we can change this, but this sounds good to me

tzviya: Back to the editorial wording in #76
... Ada or I will change the introductory text, remove the bolding, make the first sentences actual sentences
... and go over the copy edits
... and change ombuds to ombudsperson/people throughout
... is there anything else before the final edits before circulating it to the AB, W3M, and eventually the AC

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to talk about the sequence

jeff: For something as important as this change, it needs director's review
... it goes to W3M
... as early as we have a final text, I think it's important to have it reviewed
... after the edits, is this the final

tzviya: In the interest of formality, we should do a CFC of one week

jeff: Depends on the week

tzviya: I can do it today
... there are only minor edits

<nigel> +1 to doing a formal CFC on the final version post merges and copy edit.

jeff: People have already started to leave, let's have it open until Jan 8

<nigel> +1 to leaving adequate review time

Judy: If we want it done before the next W3M, or do we lose a week
... if it's done by friday, and reviewed by Jan 7, then it's ready for the Jan 8 W3M

tzviya: Let's open it today and close it Jan 7

Judy: The 6th would be tough if people are just getting back

jeff: If we close it on the 7th, and we don't get it until the end of the day, it would be hard
... we can do it through the 6th

tzviya: I would be very surprised if we get many comments from PWE, it's been circulated for over a month
... the last few revisions have been minor
... unlikely we'll receive anything other than minor comments

jeff: I would do it slightly modified, send it out for the CFC and W3M at the same time
... not part of the CFC, but in parallel
... if CFC comes back with a thumbs up, W3M can too

tzviya: Fantastic, would that come from me or you?

jeff: When you send out the CFC to ProgressCG, you or I can send it to the W3M

tzviya: Ada and I will work on edits today
... end of the day US time
... next calendar meeting is on the 9th of January
... let's meet again on the 9th
... we might have some edits by them
... next steps are chairs training and more documentation
... thank you all for all the hardwork

<jeff> Tzviya++

Judy: Thank you for rejoining us with energy and wrapping this up!

Happy new Year!

<jeff> Ada++

- DRAFT -

PWE 2019-12-19

19 Dec 2019

Attendees

Contents

Summary of Action Items

Summary of Resolutions

Scribe.perl diagnostic output