Meeting minutes
Introductions
Tzviya: we have some who haven't previously joined this call; let's introduce ourselves
Tzviya: I'm from Wiley
Barbara: I'm from Intel, focusing on Media and Entertainment, Web Graphics, Machine Learning on the Web, and Web Assembly
Ralph: I'm W3C staff, working from Massachusetts
Wendy: I'm from Rakuten Kobo, working from Toronto on Publishing@W3C
Judy: I'm W3C staff, based
in Cambridge MA, interested in Positive Work Environment in W3C for a
very long time
… excited that the updated CEPC is getting close to
completing Member review
Jeff: I'm W3C CEO and one of the current Ombuds, and work from my backyard when its 20C and no humidity
Tess: I'm from Apple, on the TAG, in too many WGs, miss the best donuts in the world in Cambridge
ombuds roadmap
<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/wiki/Roadmap
Tzviya: Judy and I put together a ^^ draft roadmap
Tess: sorry for coining "ombuddys" a few years ago :)
Tzviya: many of the W3C
Ombuds are also in executive positions
… current best practice recommends against that; it
can lead to uncomfortable situations
… people might respond in the interests of the
organization rather than in the interest of the individual
… whether or not that is the case, it can lead to
concerns
… as you can see in the draft roadmap, it's a
multi-tiered process
Judy: we started with an aim
to have much more detail but grew concerned that we'd overwhelm people
… hopefully these are simple steps
… we don't think we're anywhere near ready to switch
Ombuds folk
… 4 areas we need to think about with discrete effort
… the Ombuds themselves, and we need to learn more
about the MIT Ombuds
… there are many types of issues; some around
employees and if they are MiT employees they would fit within the
MIT program
… if the issue is between Members or between a Member
and an Invited Expert, probably the MIT Ombuds would decline to be
involved
… when W3C becomes a legal entity we have the option
to use other Ombuds
Judy: and plan for some
selection or re-selection of Ombuds, perhaps plan an interim
re-selection before becoming a legal entity
… we see this as a limited but necessary support
function
… on a given year there may be nothing or may be
multiple needs for an Ombuds investigation
… there are a few steps listed under Investigation
Program
… under CEPC Procedures
… there may be need for mediation
… if there's been a more severe incident somebody
might want a sounding board
… what does an ombuds do in such a case?
… W3C doesn't have "back office" procedures at the
moment
… if we formalize those we need review from people
with experience and possible legal review as well
… Jory has started a training program on conflict
de-escalation
… we need other training as well
… including training for the ombuds
… and what kind of repetition do we need to keep the
community up to date
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to suggest some adds to the roadmap
Jeff: looking through the
list, I think several things need to be more spelled-out
… first, we have to write-up the role of the
ombudsperson; this is often misunderstood
… in my view the role is principally facilitation
… often people come to an ombuds expecting them to fix
some injustice that has happened to them
… we need a better write-up on what the ombuds is
actually supposed to do
… second, we need more on communications
… in the current CEPC there is scant text on
communication
… third, selection of ombuds
… the roadmap lists steps for the legal entity
… but before that I imagine we'd open the
Ombudspeople; they might not be the current Ombuds, perhaps not all
even Team
… we need to write down some selection criteria and
who does the selection; Team, AB, ??
… fourth, the relationship between the ombuds, Team,
chairs, so forth
… tease out those relationships
… these might already be mentioned in the roadmap but
need more detail
Tzviya: all are implied in
the roadmap but we could spell them out in detail
… on role of ombuds and procedures ...
… these go hand-in-hand but we need to clarify the
extent of the role of the ombuds before we work on procedures
… at least the role of the existing ombuds
… we don't have clear selection criteria nor training
right now
… I'll edit the document to clarify after this meeting
… we absolutely do need to understand exactly what an
ombuds can and cannot do
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond to jeff_
Tzviya: and what the criteria should be for selecting them
Judy: we don't yet know the
sequence
… hopefully we can do many of these items in parallel
… Tzviya and I have been working on this document
together
… perhaps we can update the set of ombuds in the short
term
… but we need to get training to a state that it's not
currently
… happy to incorporate comments on timing
Barbara: are we clear when
somebody should go to an Ombuds?
… did we provide any level of clarity?
… we're defining a role but what problem are they
solving?
… will we make it clear to the community when to go to
an ombuds?
Judy: two of the ombuds are
on this call; Jeff and Ralph
… my understanding is that W3C wants the Ombuds to be
people to whom anyone in the community can reach out
… when there are conflicts or potentially something
that fits into CEPC
… this is assumed by default to be a confidential
process
<jeff_> +1 Judy
Judy: depending on the issue and how it evolves it could be that the person against whom there is a conflict might become aware
<tzviya> https://www.w3.org/2020/05/CEPC
Judy: but it is a confidential process
Tzviya: the proposed CEPC
revision makes extensive reference to Ombuds
… but we are anecdotally aware that people do approach
others who are not Ombudspersons
… there's no problem with that but we're trying to
improve the Ombuds program so the Ombuds are better able to handle
the situations that do arise
Barbara: the high level is:
there are high level infractions and "micro agression" lower levels
… do the Ombuds take the higher ones or is there an
opportunity for them to take lower-level ones as the first place to
go?
Tzviya: they take whatever comes to them
Wendy: perhaps Barbara's
question is related to our previous discussion on the role of chairs
… we've not yet hashed out enough where chairs fall in
the escalation process
… we might want to create a slightly better model for
how issues can be raised, who to go to if you have an issue
… Ombuds are always an option but perhaps someone
might want to go to a chair first for advice
Judy: with regard to "high
level" infractions, because W3C is an international organization it
does get complicated
… there are potential types of incidents that should
go to local public safety and not to an Ombuds
… but that can be difficult for someone who is not
familiar with the local services
… so it is possible that an Ombuds might need to
provide assistance in accessing the local [public safety] services
… we also have to be careful about assuming who is a
"safe person" to talk to in specific situations
… we should think about this and not just make
assumptions
Tzviya: on contacting local
law enforcement, in our document on "emergency situations" / "rapid
response", we did have occasion to need to write this
… we included how to contact local law enforcement
Ralph: we made a very small start with a list of "9-1-1" numbers for various countries
Tzviya: we could work more
on this rapid response document
… I'm interested in feedback on that
… the other immediate need we have is vetting and
training of our ombudspeople
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to thank Wendy
<Barb_H> Agree - Is there a way to keep the policy fresh versus a major update?
Jeff: on the issue of
updating 9-1-1 information,
… any changes we make to CEPC require Member review
… I would prefer that anything such as updating 9-1-1
emergency procedures be assigned to the Team and later linked from
CEPC
Tzviya: right now that's in the Procedures pages and assigned to W3M
Jeff: I'm not sure that is
accurate; CEPC links to the Procedures document
… to the extent that the Membership have to agree to
CEPC and that document links to others, it's not obvious to me that
we can update the Procedures document without going back to the
Membership
… I'm just talking procedurally
Jeff: thanks to Wendy for
reminding us that the chairs play a very important role
… #41 notes that we need to better define the role of
chairs w.r.t. PWE
… we decided to defer that
… a lot of the CEPC complaints that arise are due to
chair actions
… they act on issues that arise in their group and
sometimes that turns into a complaint from someone who felt offended
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to briefly suggest that the question of contacting local law enforcement may be less straightforward than it appears
Jeff: I hope we can get back to #41 and describe the role of chairs more
Judy: re: the emergency
info, this can become complicated
… given issues of personal safety based on different
identity issues and what can happen in different cultures or
jurisdictions, we might want to be very careful about what we say an
Ombuds can do
… I hope we won't try to do that quickly
Judy: about timeline; what are people's thoughts about sequencing?
<Barb_H> Chair role - we asking them to be intentional and active includer? If so they need training.
Tzviya: is it the case that we might be able to use MIT Ombuds for incidents that occur outside the US?
Judy: I believe geography
doesn't matter as much as proximity to an MIT employee
… if the incident involved an MIT employee, my
understanding is that this does fall within MIT's Ombuds
jurisdiction
… but if the individuals are not MIT employees then
MIT might not get involved
Tzviya: can the MIT Ombuds get MIT training?
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to suggest a time-box approach
Jeff; I don't recall Ombuds training
… there was MIT training on sexual harassment and we
mandated several years ago that all the Team should take it
… however when we wanted to mandate that new staff
take it we discovered the MIT course was no longer available
[outside MIT]
Jeff: to the point that we
have some employees and a very large number of volunteers,
… it would be useful for someone to figure out a
reasonable time to get some of this done
… perhaps a year
… and bucket what we can expect to get done in a year
and what might take longer
… that discussion would allow us to think about what
we can afford to let take longer
… I'd like to have a broad view of the timing of the
entire roadmap
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest trying quarterly buckets
Judy: Tzviya and I had
committed to trying to attach a straw timing to the items in the
roadmap
… I'm interested in seeing what might fit into
quarterly buckets
… I think we need more granularity for that to make
sense
… even if progress at a high level is on a yearly
scale
Tzviya: another question
that comes up repeatedly is training and the possibility of
outsourcing
… I understand it's hard to get commitment to fund
especially when we don't have cost estimates
… is there appetite for outsourcing training? is it
worth doing the work to get cost estimates?
Jeff: we could have that
conversation here or separately; either is OK with me
… what would we outsource?
… the design of the ombuds program -- how we want it
to work -- is very specific to us
<Barb_H> Roadmap is a great communication tool for your management, leadership and the community. W3C is good at it for technology view. The media roadmap is my favorite.
Jeff: it's important that
our process is designed by our community
… this is not a financial point
<Zakim> Judy, you wanted to suggest some potential costs to plan for, even if limited
Jeff: when we tried to
explain the W3C context to the MIT Ombuds they noted that they "know
who the MIT community is" but that the W3C community could be anyone
in the world
… we need discuss our context more
Judy: I'd expect we'd have
some things that we would need to fund
… we need input from, or at least review, from people
with practical experience
… we might not have that in the Team but MIT might be
willing to advise
… and we might need to consult with someone who
specializes in this
… there may be training we'd want to outsource
… or a limited investigational retainer that we'd hope
not to have to use a lot but that we'd want to line up
<Zakim> jeff_, you wanted to provide additional guidance on outsourcing
Judy: some project planning
Jeff: establishing a
positive work environment is very important to us, even strategic
… you may have seen our announcement last week that
W3C is putting 5k USD into our TPAC Diversity Fund
… in general, for the right topic we're willing to put
money into it
Tzviya: next steps: Judy and
I will refine the roadmap, adding some dates
… volunteers welcome
… as we get deeper into it we'll need more help
<Barb_H> I am will to help.
Barbara: I've seen around
the world that we can no longer sit on the sideline, so I want to help
… my perspective is "a person from the community"
… your relationship with the leadership is fabulous
… I'm trying to give a view from the community; a
single voice
… on the roadmap, please! W3C has a heritage of some
of the best roadmaps I've seen
Barbara: what's there, what's being worked, what are future plans -- W3C is excellent at roadmaps; let's take that from technology into this topic
<tzviya> W3C's Inclusion and Diversity CG is meeting on Thursday https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-idcg/2020Jun/0044.html
Tzviya: see ^^ IDCG meeting announcement
Tess: happy to be jumping into this conversation
Next Meeting
Tzviya: we're scheduled to
meet next on 30 June at the same time
… hope to have more info on the roadmap by then
[adjourned]