– DRAFT –
PWE

PWE

<tzviya> ] https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌PWETF/‌pulls

Tviya: Ada had stepped away as editor
… Marcos will be joining us, from Australia

Review PRs on CEPC

#108 clarify "following"

<wendyreid> +1

<dkaplan3> +1

Tzviya: the purpose here was to disambiguate from social media "follow"
… hearing no disagreement, I'm merging

#109 swapped definitions

Tzviya: this corrects an error in the previous version, swapping the definitions of "sexual harassment" and "unwelcome sexual advance"
… both definitions are retained

<dkaplan3> +1

<wendyreid> +1

Tzviya: hearing no disagreement, I'm merging

#110 Moving Unacceptable Behaviour

Wendy: this puts positive behaviors first, unacceptable behaviors second

<jeff> +1

<Ralph> +1

Wendy: hearing no disagreement, I'm merging

Next steps CEPC

Tzviya: there have been significant edits so we need another CfC
… should this go to W3M again?

Jeff: yes, I think so

Tzviya: we'll start a 1-week CfC
… advice on when to pass this on to the AB and AC?

Jeff: I put it on the AB f2f agenda, 25-27 Feb
… as soon as it's clear the CfC has consensus it would be wise to send it to the AB for them to read prior to their f2f

Tzviya: OK
… I'll also go through the open editorial GH issues
… I believe all of them have been managed except for possibly one

<tzviya> https://‌github.com/‌w3c/‌PWETF/‌issues/‌106

Tzviya: I was contacted suggestion #106
… about someone misrepresenting themself
… it's a bit late in the game to be editing, but ...

Judy: it does seem within scope of the updated policy
… I support adding it

WendyR: my first thought was to look into guidelines, such as what a journalist would use
… a framework such as "it is important to be honest about your affiliation" would be helpful, particularly if we define scenarios

Tzviya: some professional organizations have required disclosure

Deborah: sticking with just affiliation feels restricted
… the specific situation described is dishonesty
… I'm sure we can find a phrase from multiple professional ethics boards

Judy: funder disclosure for scholarly papers addresses a different situation -- conflict of interest
… if there's a way to adjust the wording to fit existing definitions, ok

Tzviya: we have cases where Invited Experts are sponsored by an organization but don't work for them
… we might add to Unacceptable Behavior something like "lying" or "outright dishonesty"
… I'd appreciate help in wording

Jeff: on the one week review, we've processed 30 pull requests since the original CfC
… this addition would also be substantive
… so I'd encourage a two-week CfC

Tzviya: fine, as long as we have the time

Judy: does that keep us on schedule w.r.t. the W3C Process revisions?

Jeff: if it completes on 12 Feb that still gives the AB two weeks to review before their meeting

Judy: and W3M would be concurrent?

Jeff: I'll want to know by the end of today's call when we'll have the final version
… I'll want to send the clean final version to W3M

Tzviya: I hope to have a final version by Thursday
… need to check that Marcos can help with that

Jeff: I can put it on the 5 Feb W3M meeting, which is still plenty of time

<dkaplan3> if you decide you do want to add honesty language, society of American archivists code of ethics says "In their professional relationships with donors, records creators, users, and colleagues, archivists are honest, fair, collegial, and equitable." But "dishonesty" works for me.

Tzviya: I propose to add "dishonesty" to unacceptable behavior
… just to be simple

<dkaplan3> Another longer one I just found is "A. HONESTY (1) being truthful, sincere, forthright and, unless professional duties require confidentiality or special discretion, candid, straightforward and frank;

<dkaplan3> (2) not cheating, stealing, lying, deceiving, acting deviously, nor intentionally misleading another by omission, half-truth or other means. "

Jeff: words such a "lying" and "dishonesty": there are all sorts of white lies
… I'd be more comfortable with "misrepresentation"
… more clearly unprofessional

Deborah: I found ^^ from some on-line professional ethics statements; this was the shortest I found
… I found some from professional boards that were two pages!
… this language uses "honesty" and then defines it
… it's very clear that it's not talking about "white lies" but professional deception

Wendy: I really like the longer one; it's a positive definition
… and covers all the bases of the issue
… I think it covers everything pretty well

Tzviya: how do people feel about adding this to "expected behavior" section?
… what license does this have where Deborah found it?

<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to say that I think that (currently discussed) language is a substantial change

Judy: several considerations
… we're discussing this due to an actual situation of misrepresentation
… we work in a diverse cultural environment, internationally, with various motivations to participate
… I worry that this sounds like a substantial change
… and sounds like it goes very far

Jeff: +1 to everyone
… the positive statement is very strong and I strongly support including the positive thing as an expected behavior
… where Judy's concerns may be magnified is in defining the unacceptable behavior
… it may be sufficient to just have the very strong statement about proper representation and honesty in acceptable behavior

Tzviya: that's what I'm proposing

Judy: that may indeed work

proposal : add HONESTY (1) being truthful, sincere, forthright and, unless professional duties require confidentiality or special discretion, candid, straightforward and frank;

Tzviya: with ever-so-slight wordsmithing to make it stylistically like the rest of CEPC

<Ralph> +1

<dkaplan3> +1

<wendyreid> +1

<tzviya> +1

<Judy> +1

Tzviya: I'll create the pr after the meeting and merge it so there's one body to look at, but highlight this change in the CfC

<jeff> +1

Tzviya: before I send the CfC I'd appreciate a volunteer to do a copyedit review

WendyR: I'll do it this afternoon

De-escalation training

Jory: back during TPAC we talked about an opportunity for this group to suggest some trainings for chairs
… one topic we talked about was conflict de-escalation
… in the issue I wrote a draft curriculum
… the intention was not to make this mandatory but to be able to provide resources and support for those looking for them; to be supportive
… over the weekend I worked on the curriculum to make it more of a course deliverable in an hour
… Tzviya and I talked about doing this in two timzones on March 4 & 5
… with a pre-run about two weeks prior
… around Feb 21 or 28

<jorydotcom> https://‌docs.google.com/‌presentation/‌d/‌1ga3qv3EbdFJGGesEmknwNJ72AQvh3ULn6FmvYHN-LyE/‌edit#slide=id.g422c9cd2c2_0_13

<Judy> [JB would be interested in a preview training]

Jory: see ^^
… discuss what makes sense for us as a collaborative community
… what types of interventions work best for us
… I did not invent this; this is taught in many management classes
… as we're teaching this on-line we can't do the group exercises that are normally done
… it is ambitious to cover this in an hour
… we definitely want to apply a cultural lens
… and make sure the material makes sense from that angle

Judy: thanks for pulling this together
… it gives us an idea of how you might approach it
… it might be helpful to check the terminology for general international understanding, including non-English-fluent folk
… "party-centric" popped out at me, for example
… and since this would be presented in the W3C context, maybe there's a way to provide some anchors in the W3C structures and processes so people can place it in the types of discussions that happen in W3C space
… does "present on-line" mean live video conference? if so, maybe there are group exercises that would work

Jory: one reason I want to do a dry run is to test some exercises

<Judy> +1 to Zoom webinar format

Jory: the idea would be to deliver via webinar and allow people to participate
… when we don't have a pre-registration list it's hard to pair people up, so the exercises would probably be directed individual exercises
… .I have to figure out how to do that in the short timeframe
… I love exercises; it's way more fun and useful for people

Jeff: this is terrific, Jory; thanks for doing it
… it's more important that we get this done right than we get it done quickly
… I think it would be better not to schedule the webinar until you do the dry run
… something may come up in the dry run
… we've been waiting for this for years; we can wait a couple more months
… I encourage you to include Philippe Le Hegaret in the loop as he works with the chairs on a daily basis
… after the dry run I suggest scheduling with a couple of months lead time so people have enough notice to arrange their calendars

<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk logistics

Tzviya: we're talking about a one hour session; I feel 1 month notice should be sufficient

<Judy> JB has a Zoom channel

Tzviya: and we're planning two timezones; one Europe-friendly and one North America-friendly
… Jory has done this course before
… and we're hearing from people who are eager for this training
… maybe April rather than March
… other logistics: getting an international eye on the terminology
… and we need to notify people - ac-forum, chairs, and others
… I feel comfortable having Jory tell us where she needs help and when she can get this done

Judy: we have a number of Zoom channels available
… we should figure out the total size of the community we'd like to reach
… an idea for an interactive activity: we might get more participation if we announce each session as limited to 40 people
… and run it enough times so the majority of chairs and other roles we're trying to reach get a chance to participate

Jory: it doesn't matter to me if there are 40 people, 100 people, or 5 people
… once the materials are made and reviewed for consistency, culture, and accessibility then it's functionally done and repeatable
… we could give it once a month even
… I'm super-flexible

<Judy> [JB withdraws suggestion to consider capping attendance per session]

Jory: the idea of asking people to sign-up ahead of time is probably good
… beginning of March is still absolutely good for me
… waiting an extra week or so after the dry run is fine too
… I'll invite PLH to attend the dry-run

Tzviya: Jory and I can work the scheduling off-line, including PLH

GitHub organization and labeling

Wendy: I've added some new labels in the repo
… looking at the upcoming work I see four main projects: CEPC, Ombuds, Training, Procedures
… I tagged each issue with the project it is related to
… I will create folders to organize things
… so the de-escalation training can be added to a 'resources' folder
… I also created a 'propose-closing' label to help with agenda management

Tzviya: thanks Wendy; this will help us keep GH organized in a meaningful way
… once CEPC is approved we'll look for people to translate it
… we want it to be available in many languages

Next meeting

Tzviya: we'll meet in two weeks; 11 February
… look for the formal CfC in your email, hopefully tomorrow
… and we'll be finished with this iteration of CEPC by the next meeting

<jeff> Tzviya++

Tzviya: still to get through the AB, AC, and Director

<Ralph> Tzviya++

[adjourned]