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