12:31:59 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #PWE
12:31:59 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-PWE-irc
12:32:06 <angel> Meeting: PWE CG Call
12:32:10 <angel> Chair: Angel
12:32:23 <angel> Agenda+ Training update
12:32:31 <angel> Agenda+ CEPC CfC closed
12:32:38 <angel> Agenda+ adding acknowledgements
12:32:52 <angel> Agenda+ AB Feedback
12:32:59 <angel> Agenda+ Circulating CEPC to AC and Chairs
12:33:11 <angel> Agenda+ ombuds update
13:48:02 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #pwe
13:54:00 <dauwhe_> dauwhe_ has joined #pwe
14:29:54 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:31:35 <jorydotcom> jorydotcom has joined #pwe
14:36:04 <chaals> chaals has joined #pwe
14:42:05 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has joined #pwe
14:47:41 <Ralph> Ralph has joined #pwe
14:50:37 <Angel> Angel has joined #PWE
14:54:09 <nikolas-toner> nikolas-toner has joined #pwe
14:55:38 <Ralph> present+
14:56:16 <dauwhe> dauwhe has joined #pwe
14:57:58 <jeff> jeff has joined #pwe
15:00:03 <dkaplan3> present+
15:00:54 <jeff> present+
15:01:02 <wendyreid> present+
15:01:10 <adarose> present+
15:01:11 <Angel> zakim, take up agenda 1
15:01:11 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Training update" taken up [from angel]
15:01:30 <jorydotcom> present but unable to join live call as I am at a onsite meeting
15:01:41 <jorydotcom> emailed the Public list with my update
15:02:28 <jorydotcom> apologies, I had told T that I hoped to join for the first 20 mins or so
15:02:41 <Angel> webex:https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m9fe13fffb1ad13be37ca4af0323a7a62
15:03:11 <Ralph> s|https://mit.webex.com/mit/j.php?MTID=m9fe13fffb1ad13be37ca4af0323a7a62||
15:03:36 <Ralph> zakim, next item
15:03:36 <Zakim> agendum 2. "CEPC CfC closed" taken up [from angel]
15:03:41 <Ralph> zakim, take up item 1
15:03:42 <Zakim> agendum 1. "Training update" taken up [from angel]
15:03:45 <Ralph> scribe+
15:03:51 <Ralph> scribenick: Ralph
15:04:05 <jeff> q+
15:04:37 <Judy> Judy has joined #pwe
15:04:41 <Ralph> Jeff: we're all following the events in China; it sounds very difficult there.  How are you doing?
15:04:44 <Judy> present+
15:04:50 <Ralph> AnQi: the virus is still spreading but slowing down
15:04:52 <jeff> ack je
15:04:58 <Ralph> ... people are optimistic that this can be ended soon
15:05:08 <Ralph> ... I've been working from home and haven't stepped out of my apartment for a week
15:05:21 <Ralph> ... I miss being able to walk out in the open air
15:05:32 <Ralph> ... some companies are starting to allow people back to their offices
15:06:03 <Ralph> ... the news is anticipating the virus will end when the weather gets warmer, perhaps two months
15:06:08 <Ralph> ... but that is very optimistic
15:06:10 <jorydotcom> +1, sending <3s
15:06:14 <Ralph> Jeff: we're all hoping for the best
15:06:18 <Ralph> <ralph> +1
15:06:28 <Ralph> AnQi: I hope you all stay safe too
15:06:39 <Angel> zakim, take up agenda 2
15:06:39 <Zakim> agendum 2. "CEPC CfC closed" taken up [from angel]
15:06:52 <Ralph> AnQi: the CfC has closed
15:07:01 <Ralph> ... we only received positive feedback to the updated draft
15:07:15 <Ralph> ... Vlad suggested adding acknowledgements
15:07:27 <Ralph> ... especiallly the previous PWETF
15:07:27 <Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/116
15:07:37 <Ralph> ... see #116 ^^
15:07:49 <Ralph> ... is everyone OK with adding those previous contributors?
15:07:54 <wendyreid> +1
15:07:58 <Ralph> <ralph> +1
15:08:00 <dkaplan3> +1
15:08:03 <nikolas-toner> +1
15:08:05 <adarose> 0
15:08:12 <jeff> +1
15:08:16 <Angel> +1
15:08:48 <Ralph> AnQi: I will work with Tzviya to create the list and put that in the repo for review
15:09:01 <Ralph> zakim, close item 2
15:09:01 <Zakim> agendum 2, CEPC CfC closed, closed
15:09:02 <Zakim> I see 4 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:09:02 <Zakim> 3. adding acknowledgements [from angel]
15:09:07 <Ralph> zakim, close item 3
15:09:07 <Zakim> agendum 3, adding acknowledgements, closed
15:09:08 <Zakim> I see 3 items remaining on the agenda; the next one is
15:09:08 <Zakim> 4. AB Feedback [from angel]
15:09:11 <Ralph> zakim, next item
15:09:11 <Zakim> agendum 4. "AB Feedback" taken up [from angel]
15:09:36 <Ralph> AnQi: the AB proposed a few changes; see PR #117 and #118
15:09:46 <Ralph> ... could Jeff summarize?
15:10:00 <Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/117
15:10:24 <Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/118
15:10:59 <jeff> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/117/67bb88c...b117f6c.html#code
15:11:04 <Ralph> Jeff: as best as I can summarize ...
15:11:31 <Angel> https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/
15:12:17 <Ralph> ... immediately before the Reporting section the paragraph "This code prioritizes ..."
15:13:11 <Ralph> ... some of the AB noted that this combines that this combines two items
15:13:25 <Ralph> ... and suggested breaking into two sentences
15:13:40 <Ralph> ... the wording "those enforcing" was awkward as a theme
15:13:54 <adarose> q+
15:13:59 <Ralph> ... some thought the point of prioritizing safety of individuals was universal
15:14:20 <Ralph> ... #117 is a proposal to bring those themes together
15:14:35 <Ralph> ... as best I can summarize the thoughts of others
15:14:55 <Ralph> regrets+ Tzviya
15:15:17 <Ralph> Ada: why is there confusion with conflating reserving the right to not take further action and "we will not take further action" ?
15:16:16 <Ralph> Jeff: the AB as a whole doesn't yet have their final review discussion; that will happen in two weeks
15:16:27 <Ralph> ... these comments come from individuals on the AB
15:16:48 <Judy> q+
15:17:11 <Ralph> ... I don't think people are reading [the distinction Ada notes]; they just thought the wording was awkward
15:17:26 <Ralph> Ada: [my concern is] people shouldn't use the CEPC against the CEPC
15:17:35 <Ralph> ... closing down spaces to marginalized groups
15:17:56 <Ralph> ... if someone is doing such a thing, "maybe nothing will happen" vs. "nothing will happen"
15:18:14 <Ralph> ... the proposed wording sounds like "we might compromise"
15:18:21 <Angel> ack ada
15:18:26 <Angel> ack judy
15:18:37 <Ralph> Judy: I keep coming back to this section with concern
15:18:51 <Ralph> ... not because of what the policy says but because it might be difficult for people to understand
15:18:58 <Ralph> ... especially those not fluent in English
15:19:12 <Ralph> ... this concern is reinforced every time we discuss interpretation
15:19:21 <Ralph> ... I wonder if it needs to be rewritten more clearly again
15:19:33 <Ralph> ... I worry about having anything in the policy that is difficult to understand
15:19:51 <Ralph> [is editing this a show-stopper for someone?]
15:20:22 <Ralph> AnQi: how much work are we expecting?  it's time-sensitive; should we defer changes to the next version?
15:20:28 <adarose> q+
15:20:31 <Ralph> Judy: I'm focussed on just that one sentence
15:20:44 <Ralph> ... we seem to keep coming back to this sentence
15:20:59 <Ralph> ... if we want to keep the sentence in, can we wordsmith it better?
15:21:17 <Angel> ack ada
15:21:23 <Ralph> ... are the comments we're getting because people don't understand what is written or because they want something different?
15:21:36 <Ralph> Ada: there will always be one more sentence that people want to change
15:21:55 <Ralph> ... which is a way to get nowhere
15:21:56 <dkaplan3> Ada++
15:22:02 <wendyreid> +1
15:22:05 <dkaplan3> q+
15:22:32 <Judy> [JB: definitely not my intent to slow it down or to remove it. my hope is to make sure that people understand it.]
15:22:33 <Ralph> ... if everyone feels comfortable with this line then W3C must be a bastion of goodness
15:22:40 <Judy> q+
15:22:54 <Ralph> ... I have strong feelings about this line
15:23:20 <Ralph> Deborah: I agree with Ada
15:23:39 <Ralph> ... personal experience is extremely relevant to how we write things
15:23:57 <Ralph> ... there's always a sentence that can be wordsmithed better or than can be misinterpreted
15:24:01 <Ralph> ... we can't be perfect
15:24:18 <Ralph> ... making it clear that we are inclusive of everyone but explicitly aimed at marginalized communities is our goal
15:24:23 <Angel> q?
15:24:28 <Judy> ack d
15:24:31 <Ralph> ... safety of marginalized individuals [is key]
15:24:36 <Ralph> ... so I agree with Ada
15:24:39 <Angel> ack dkap
15:24:43 <Angel> ack judy
15:24:58 <Ralph> Judy: I am happy to withdraw my suggestion to wordsmith this sentence
15:25:28 <Ralph> ... I support what Deborah is saying
15:25:46 <Ralph> ... we're still awaiting AB review and discussion
15:26:01 <Ralph> ... we've been tracking the timing closely in order to not miss the Process 2020 updates
15:26:33 <Ralph> ... how can we keep on track if the full AB review isn't for another two weeks?
15:27:30 <Ralph> AnQi: I got some feedback from Tzviya that there were these tweaks and suggestions from AB participants
15:27:34 <Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/118
15:27:43 <Angel> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/117
15:27:44 <Ralph> ... and these two pull requests might satisfy them and the rest of the AB
15:28:03 <Ralph> Jeff: the AB meets two weeks from today
15:28:20 <Ralph> ... that conflicts with this CG meeting time
15:28:54 <Ralph> ... we have an existing document that has consensus from the CE and from W3M
15:29:07 <Ralph> ... coming into the AB meeting there is a document that has some consensus
15:29:22 <Ralph> ... the plan has been that the AB forward a document to the AC in early March
15:29:42 <Ralph> ... in the pre-review the AB has been doing some new issues came up
15:29:50 <Ralph> ... we have to decide if those are substantive or editorial
15:30:03 <Ralph> ... if editorial, then the previous CfC holds
15:30:46 <Ralph> ... if we believe the changes the AB wants to make are substantive then the AB has several choices; send it back to the CG, send it to the AC with their comments on things they think should be changed
15:30:48 <Judy> q+
15:31:18 <Ralph> ... is Tzviya's view that these changes are editorial or substantive?
15:31:22 <Ralph> AnQi: editorial
15:31:32 <Judy> q+ to ask for the record among all here whether the proposed 117 and 118 changes are opposed or supported
15:31:57 <Ralph> Jeff: if everyone agrees these are editorial then the revised document can move forward
15:32:03 <Angel> ack judy
15:32:03 <Zakim> Judy, you wanted to ask for the record among all here whether the proposed 117 and 118 changes are opposed or supported
15:32:44 <adarose> q+
15:32:50 <Ralph> Judy: are any of those here uncomfortable with these changes?
15:33:06 <Angel> ack ada
15:33:29 <Ralph> Ada: #118 seems totally editorial and is fine
15:33:42 <Ralph> ... #117 weakens the sentence and would need some changes
15:33:45 <Judy> q+
15:33:50 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm not comfortable with #117
15:34:02 <Angel> ack ada
15:34:04 <jeff> Ralph: I am also comfortable with #118, but not #117
15:34:11 <Angel> ack ralph
15:34:17 <jeff> ... I proposed a tweak in the discussion thread
15:34:24 <jeff> ... it's gotten some thumbs up
15:34:36 <jeff> ... chair, Ada can discuss whether the tweak satisfies folks
15:34:39 <adarose> q+
15:34:43 <jeff> ... or abandon #117.
15:34:45 <Ralph> scribe+ Jeff
15:34:48 <Angel> ack judy
15:35:36 <Ralph> Judy: let's try to sort out both of these to get ahead of early reviews
15:35:43 <Ralph> ... and avoid yet more delay
15:35:49 <Angel> q?
15:35:56 <jeff> q+
15:36:13 <Ralph> Ada: Ralph's suggestion doesn't fix my concerns
15:36:13 <jeff> q-
15:36:32 <Ralph> ... it doesn't make it clear that certain complaints might receive no action
15:36:50 <Ralph> ... it still reads that we might try to compromise
15:37:03 <Ralph> ... Wendy's suggestion would be an appropriate fix
15:37:18 <Angel> ack ada
15:37:49 <Ralph> Ralph: Wendy's is sufficient by itself or Wendy's plus mine?
15:38:03 <Ralph> Ada: Wendy's is sufficient, no objection to Ralph's
15:38:11 <Ralph> Ralph: no objection to Wendy's
15:38:24 <Ralph> AnQi: do we have this group's consensus to accept #118?
15:38:25 <adarose> +1
15:38:28 <jeff> +1
15:38:28 <dkaplan3> +1
15:38:28 <wendyreid> +1
15:38:29 <Ralph> <ralph> +1
15:38:35 <nikolas-toner> +1
15:39:03 <Ralph> present+ NikolasToner
15:39:13 <adarose> +2 abandon, +1 accept wendy' suggestion
15:39:16 <Ralph> AnQi: on #118, should we abandon or accept Wendy's ?
15:39:32 <adarose> +1
15:39:40 <Ralph> <ralph> I'd abandon or do Wendy's + mine
15:39:56 <jeff> +1 to accepting Wendy's suggestion
15:39:58 <Ralph> [and since there wasn't a #3, then I''m #2]
15:40:15 <wendyreid> +1 to accepting Wendy's suggestion
15:40:32 <dkaplan3> +2
15:40:53 <jeff> q+
15:41:06 <jeff> q-
15:41:10 <Angel> ack ralph
15:41:27 <adarose> q+
15:41:37 <Angel> ack ada
15:41:49 <Ralph> Ralph: I'm confused why Ada felt that Wendy's change is sufficient
15:42:13 <Ralph> Ada: replacing "marginalized communities" with "those less privileged" achieves pretty much the same result
15:42:28 <Ralph> ... the big change is reserving the right not to take further action
15:42:45 <Ralph> Ralph: thanks; I'm comfortable accepting just Wendy's change
15:43:03 <nikolas-toner> q+
15:43:08 <Ralph> AnQi: there's almost consensus; a majority accepting Wendy's change
15:43:14 <Ralph> ... any objection?
15:43:18 <Angel> ack niko
15:43:45 <Ralph> Nikolas: does Wendy's change include removing the portion on complaints against -isms not being acting on?
15:43:52 <adarose> q+
15:43:53 <Ralph> ... reserving the right not to take further action?
15:44:08 <Angel> ack ada
15:44:15 <Ralph> Ada: Wendy's change restores that section
15:44:26 <Ralph> ... reserving the right not to take action on certain complaints
15:44:41 <nikolas-toner> +1 to accept Wendy's change
15:45:33 <Ralph> AnQi: we have consensus to accept #118 as -is and #117 to accept with Wendy's change
15:45:35 <jeff> q+
15:45:40 <Ralph> s/as -is/as-is/
15:45:40 <Angel> ack jeff
15:46:18 <Ralph> Jeff: there was a consensus that Wendy's change was an improvement to #117 but did we decide on accepting #117?
15:46:31 <Ralph> AnQi: I considered those together, but thanks for clarifying
15:46:42 <Ralph> ... do we accept #117 with Wendy's change?
15:46:45 <jeff> +1
15:46:45 <dkaplan3> +1
15:46:46 <adarose> +1
15:46:46 <Ralph> <ralph> +1
15:46:48 <nikolas-toner> +1
15:47:02 <Ralph> AnQi: so resolved
15:47:13 <wendyreid> +1
15:47:15 <Ralph> zakim, next item
15:47:15 <Zakim> agendum 5. "Circulating CEPC to AC and Chairs" taken up [from angel]
15:47:35 <Ralph> AnQi: as Jeff has mentioned, we will sent this updated draft to the AC and chairs
15:47:41 <adarose> +1!!!
15:47:49 <Ralph> ... I suggest that it be sent to those groups at the same time
15:47:50 <jeff> q+
15:47:57 <Angel> ack Jeff
15:47:58 <Ralph> ... are we agreeing to send it?
15:48:07 <Ralph> Jeff: I suggest we wait until after the AB meeting
15:48:27 <Ralph> ... it's on the agenda for that meeting
15:48:30 <wendyreid> q+
15:48:35 <adarose> q+ to ask when is the AB meeting?
15:48:38 <Ralph> ... I recommend we wait in order to factor-in all their comments
15:48:41 <Angel> ack wendy
15:48:48 <Angel> q+ judy
15:48:51 <Ralph> Wendy: the AB meeting is in two weeks
15:48:54 <adarose> q-
15:49:13 <Ralph> ... the window for feedback from the AC and chairs will be much longer
15:49:40 <Ralph> ... I think it would be better to start [that longer window] sooner as they will require more time to review
15:49:43 <Angel> q?
15:50:05 <Ralph> Jeff: I suggested we wait not because I anticipate massive change; I don't anticipate massive change
15:50:36 <Ralph> ... more process-oriented; W3C generally works by running all changes through the Directdor, with W3M delegation
15:50:57 <Ralph> ... but managing changes to the Process is done by the AB and CEPC is linked to the Process
15:51:17 <Ralph> ... the AB has delegated to this CG the work on CEPC in order to work on it in as open a manner as possible
15:51:33 <Ralph> ... we're talking about a several-month cycle of review in any case
15:51:50 <chaals> chaals has joined #pwe
15:51:51 <Ralph> ... even if we wanted to send this out tomorrow, we're not ready
15:52:23 <Ralph> ... I anticipate need for a cover letter describing the rationale for the changes, some background, some inspiration for the change
15:52:29 <Ralph> ... tell a little bit of a story
15:52:48 <Ralph> ... it would probably be a good idea to ask a couple of people to draft that cover letter
15:53:24 <Ralph> Judy: I share Wendy's concerns and had not recalled that we had been planning a three-step sequence with W3M and AB reviewing concurrently
15:53:49 <Ralph> ... are there any other things that can be done at the same time?
15:54:07 <Ralph> ... can we try to time the post-AB-feedback meeting of the CG?
15:54:16 <jeff> q+
15:54:29 <Ralph> ... encouraging the AB to do as much review as they can before their f2f would be helpful
15:54:36 <Angel> ack ralph
15:55:32 <jeff> Ralph: The AB has recently reminded itself that it delegated to the CG
15:55:50 <jeff> ... in the history of the document, it became evident that CEPC needed to be linked to the process
15:55:59 <jeff> ... process explicitly cites CEPC
15:56:15 <jeff> ... the AB is the "WG" that owns the process
15:56:32 <jeff> ... things that are linked to the process are "owned" by the AB
15:56:45 <jeff> ... authority to post to the membership comes from the AB
15:57:03 <jeff> ... inappropriate to independently send something
15:57:14 <jeff> ... the AB will hopefully acknowledge us
15:57:18 <Angel> q?
15:57:22 <jeff> ... said it strongly for emphasis
15:57:34 <Angel> ack jeff
15:57:40 <Ralph> Jeff: I don't think the AB feels as strongly as Ralph does
15:57:49 <Ralph> ... Ralph was clear from a Process point of view
15:58:03 <Ralph> ... the AB feels comfortable putting a light blessing on this
15:58:08 <Angel> agenda?
15:59:13 <Ralph> ... to the concern on taking another few weeks after the AB f2f, I propose a resolution that from the point of view of the PWE CG, presuming the AB does not have massive changes on the draft CEPC document, we empower the chairs of the CG to take the document forward to the Membership immediately following the AB meeting
15:59:42 <Ralph> Judy: there could be changes proposed by the AB that might look like tweaks to some but more problematic to others
15:59:55 <Ralph> ... it would be good for this group to have visibility on those changes
16:00:03 <Ralph> ... with a brief period to flag any objections
16:00:11 <Ralph> ... let's get that on the calendar
16:00:24 <Ralph> ... can the Process calendar be adjusted to accomodate the work done on this?
16:01:01 <Ralph> Jeff: I leave it to the CG chairs how to address that comment
16:01:21 <Ralph> ... as people have left this meeting we no longer have quorum
16:01:38 <Ralph> AnQi: [of those remaining] do you agree to wait until after the AB meeting?
16:01:47 <nikolas-toner> +1
16:01:51 <jeff> +1
16:01:56 <Ralph> <ralph> +1 to wait
16:02:00 <Angel> +1
16:02:14 <dkaplan3> +1
16:02:21 <Ralph> Jeff: we need to coordinate the work so that this update is included in Process 2020
16:02:29 <Ralph> s/Jeff: /Judy:
16:02:51 <Ralph> AnQi: I conclude that we should wait until after the AB meeting
16:03:01 <Ralph> ... I will discuss with Tzviya options to bring something sooner
16:03:10 <dkaplan3> dkaplan3 has left #pwe
16:03:12 <Ralph> ... we will meet in two weeks, without Jeff and Tzviya
16:03:16 <Ralph> <ralph> and without me
16:03:31 <Ralph> AnQi: if there are other regrets, we might change the date
16:03:36 <Ralph> ... adjourned
16:03:57 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
16:03:57 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been Ralph, dkaplan, jeff, wendyreid, adarose, Judy, NikolasToner
16:03:59 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes
16:03:59 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-PWE-minutes.html Zakim
16:04:02 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
16:04:06 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
16:04:13 <Ralph> present+ Angel
16:04:35 <Angel> rrsangent, draft minutes
16:04:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2020/02/11-PWE-minutes.html Ralph
16:04:49 <Angel> rrsagent, make log public
16:05:17 <Ralph> rrsagent, bye
16:05:17 <RRSAgent> I see no action items