CfC closed

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/79

Tzviya: the CfC has closed
... most of the changes in #79 are typo fixes
... Ada and I incorporated the editorial changes Wendy proposed
... we'll get to some other feedback in a few minutes
... I'll leave #79 open for a day or two for you to review and merge at the end of the week
... #79 "CfC edits"
... a combination of edits from Judy, Jeff, and Wendy Seltzer
... I previously incorporated Vlad's comments into the CfC except for one

Report from W3M

Tzviya: I'm seeing comments in GitHub now from W3M; thanks for sharing it Jeff

Jeff: I sent it to W3M two and a half weeks ago hoping that would be enough time for them
... they pointed out yesterday that 2.5 weeks during vacation time was not adequate
... they committed to completing by the 15th
... including that W3C Counsel committed to doing their legal review
... that is tee'd up to be completed by next Wednesday
... some of W3M commented about the tone of the document
... with a very long list of "unacceptable behaviors", which caused them some shock
... I'd call their current feedback "informal"
... we also discussed two more substantive issues and is interested in seeing how the CG processese those

Tzviya: is Michael Cooper submitting comments on his own or [representing others]?

Jeff: I shared the draft in our weekly Team meeting this morning; that likely triggered some more Team to read it

Tzviya: thank you; that's helpful
... on the comment about moving acceptable behaviors before unacceptable ones
... I tried to find the minutes of our meeting when we discussed that
... [without success]
... we concluded that when people are reading through the document it's often because they are trying to solve a specific problem
... is that still our intent?
... we're still creating the Positive Work Environment but this is a Code of Conduct

Jeff: I support putting the positive first
... if people are reading this as a manual they should find what is expected first
... agree that eventually they also want to find what is disallowed

Judy: I also support reversing the order, partly hearing people's reactions who have fresh eyes on the document
... seeing a bunch of negative stuff up front set people back
... others of our policies start with our goal
... I like to start with a positive commitment

Tzviya: I'm OK switching the sections

Ada: I definitely prefer the current order but can live with changing it

Tzviya: these are issues #81 and #86; I'll combine them
... and now I can close #81

Judy: sorry for the extra work

Jeff: when might this revision be ready?
... it would be highly desirable for W3M to see the revised document

Tzviya: I'll be able to give a better answer after we discuss other changes here

open issues from CfC 

Tzviya: these are the "CEPC editorial" issues
... #78 "swapped definitions" has been an error since the published version

<tzviya> Deliberate outing of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent except as necessary to protect other community members or other vulnerable people from intentional abuse

Tzviya: ^^ is listed as one of the unacceptable behaviors

Vlad: why do we need definitions that have no connection to the rest of CEPC ?

Tzviya: we've had that discussion many times and have slimmed the glossary considerably; I don't want to reopen that discussion

Vlad: but this is only mentioned in the glossary

Tzviya: I believe it is mentioned elsewhere
... and Judy had previously raised requiring some definitions

Judy: which phrase?

Tzviya: "sexual harassment" and "sexual assault"

Judy: yes; those are important to include
... I've heard people in the past trying to sort out what to do if they believe these have occurred
... removing these terms from the document would be at the determent of providing people a structured path for when those have occurred
... keep them there to make people understand that this policy does intend to cover those situations

Tzviya: "sexual assault" is used elsewhere
... and "harassment, including sexual" is also used
... I agree it's important to retain these definitions
... willing to continue talking with Vlad offline

Judy: and I know people in the community have ssearch for these terms

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/83

Tzviya: back to #83 review exception in "deliberate outing" section
... perhaps we can find a way to phrase this better

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/83#issuecomment-572372510

Tzviya: the thinking behind including the exception clause was a situation when someone wanted to warn someone about a third person
... this is perhaps a misuse of the term "outing"

Ada: it's here not so much as "outing" as "the information that someone is ___ is outed" but that outing [one bit of information] would also out them [in another way]

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to reflect on ADA's concern

Judy: my understanding from the literature is that there are people who harass people of any gender and this isn't conclusive about their own identity
... I'm concerned that if we open a door of permissions, how far this would go in other places
... I'm more inclined to deal with these issues separately and not try to build exceptions here
... it's risky and introduces questions of subjective judgement
... issues of whisper networks that we're not prepared to address in CEPC; these may be addressed in procedures
... difficult to deal with in a sentence

Ada: I've made my position clear but I won't object

Tzviya: this is a sticky issue
... the legal review might bring other thoughts as well

<tzviya> Publishing others’ private information, such as a physical or electronic address, without explicit permission. This includes any sort of “outing” of any aspect of someone’s identity without their consent.

<tzviya> Publishing screenshots or quotes, especially from identity channels, without all quoted users’ explicit consent.

<tzviya> Publishing or telling others that a member belongs to a particular identity channel without asking their consent first.

Tzviya: ^^ comments from WeAllJS

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to comment on WeAllJS text

<Judy> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/83#issuecomment-572372510

Tzviya: I don't love the phrase "identity channels"; I'd like to find a less awkward alternative

Judy: the three subbullets of teh WeAllJS code seem very specific
... I'd feel better if we used very broad language

<tzviya> Deliberate outing of any aspect of a person’s identity without their consent

<jeff> +1

Tzviya: e.g. ^^ ?

Judy: yes

<ada> +1

<Vlad> +1

<ralph> +1

Judy: easy to parse and gives broader protection on the concern

Tzviya: I'll add to the issue and we should also open an Ombuds issue

Judy: I'm thinking this is an issue that could potentially be dealt with in Training when we're ready to delve into details
... when there's a behavior that seems imminent to put people at risk
... I want to be careful that behavior and identity are treated separately

Ada: the source was the Geek Feminism Wiki
... it comes from a long history
... that source has no rule without a reason

Tzviya: I'd love to talk with the author of Geek Feminism

Ada: I've been trying to find the source and some of the thinking but haven't had any luck

Tzviya: I've seen other versions where this section has been changes, so other communities seem to have found it necessary to change as well

Jeff: I encourage dialog with them

Judy: +1
... if the Geek Feminism code came from a GamerGate response it's possible that some came from trolling behaviors where its possible that some consider this part of their identity
... I suggest that if there is conflation of identity and behavior there then we revisit our definitions

Tzviya: I can reach out to them
... I think we've resolved to change this language and continue to discuss in Ombuds and Training
... I'll create a new pull request

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask why we are defering #84

Jeff: Reporting section edits #84 shouldn't be deferred

Tzviya: that section is choppy

Jeff: I think that section is wrong but I supported the CfC because we've done so much else that I didn't want to block
... if there is concern about someone's behavior, the first place to raise the issue is with the chair of the group
... going to an Ombuds will take a long time
... "might also go to the chair" is almost an afterthought
... we don't need to mention Ombuds twice

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to note two concerns with that

Jeff: we should be able to improve this section in the time before going to the AC

Judy: I'm concerned with an expectation that the chair is the first place to go
... I've noted over the past several months that the level of chair understanding is lower than expected
... and also that some initial reactions are inappropriate
... I don't think 'chairs' should be the automatic first place until we have better training
... also sometimes the issue is with the chair
... and if people feel they are obligated to go to the chair first they may be reluctant to report

Tzviya: I'll happily clean up the duplicated language

<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to address Judy's excellent point

Tzviya: I agree with Judy that it's not appropriate to codify that the chair is the first place to go

Jeff: my proposal was to take it to the chair unless the issue is with the chair, in which case go to an Ombuds
... regarding the level of chair training, I agree there's a lot more we need to do
... it's essential that we address Role of Chairs #41
... but even if the problem is with the chair, going to an Ombuds will take much more time
... I agree that we don't yet have the full infrastructure, but even in the absence of that structure we need to inform people what to do
... and, BTW, we've recognized that we need different Ombuds than we currently have

Tzviya: you've pointed out we still have a lot of work to do in 2020
... I'll ask Jeff to create a pull request with his specific proposed language

Judy: even with the information chairs have been provided about CEPC, there's different information that Ombuds and Team Contacts need
... so lots of work still to do

Tzviya: we need to talk about next steps
... do we need another CfC ?
... I think these changes are sufficiently minor

Jeff: I think there's time to do another CfC
... we want to get the document to the AB by 24 February
... so why not do another CfC?

<Vlad> I am traveling next week

Tzivya: I'll do a doodle poll about when the next meeting should be
... I'll sort the issues in GitHub, thinking about how best to organize them
... let's assume the next meeting will be the week of the 27th

Ada: for personal reasons I have to step away from this group

[several]: thanks for all your work here, Ada!

[adjourned]