Meeting minutes
Response to feedback and PRs
Tzviya: see pull requests 141 and 142
Tzviya: #141 points to Mozilla's comments (in a public archive)
Tzviya: we might conclude
that these are editorial comments
… in which case we could merge and move forward with a
final document
… there was some concern about whether these are
"editorial"
Jeff: in the public comments
there is reference to law enforcement being harmful
… some may disagree with that
… and might therefore consider the change
non-editorial
Wendy: depending on the
nature of the emergency, different services are appropriate
… I think it
<jorydotcom> agree with Wendy
Wendy: I think it's not a substantial change; it's just a better word
Tzviya: the public comment
doesn't say "harmful"
… I think "emergency services" is actually more
accurate and improves the text
Judy: we have several
intersecting issues that I hope we could separate
… I'm not concerned about the timing of the comment,
after the review closed
… I think "emergency services" is a better term
… there's definitely context around which services are
most appropriate for someone to go to, and those are well-documented
… if an ombuds becomes aware of something it's
important for them to know what service might be best
Jeff: I have no problem with
the term "emergency services"
… Mozilla's statement does say
"it behooves us as W3C to acknowledge these ongoing harms"
… for that reason I believe it would be a substantive change to strike "law enforcement" apparently only in response to these remarks
Ralph: The context in which
"law enforcement" appears twice
… is about immediate safety
… I don't want W3C to get close to Tantek's political
question
… I do feel, however, that the first instance of law
enforcement
… links to a wikipedia page
… so we could have a different tweak
… similar to Judy's points
Ralph: The link under the first instance of "law enforcement" in Section 4 is to a (Wikipedia) "list of emergency telephone numbers". Therefore expanding the text in the link to "local law enforcement or other emergency service" can be argued as editorial. Then the end of the following sentence could simply read "... for assistance contacting local services".
… The reason for the second sentence is that some venues have their own security staff (e.g. MIT Campus Police) with associated considerations.
Ralph: to acknowledge there
are other types of emergency services
… so we could find an addition to the language
… but I'm very concerned about a political statement
in the thread
Tzviya: we have to respond to Mozilla's comment
Tzviya: We had deferred
other services (e.g. rape hotlines) to later
… I think we can tweak the language to the scope
… the Wikipedia entry that we link to has the broader
title
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about making this more robust
Wendy: +1 to Tzviya
… we can accept the PR as it stands
… it's neutral editorially
… 9-1-1 decides which service to send
… even though there is a political context in
Mozilla's remark
… "emergency services" is a more accurate statement
Judy: we're at a sensitive
moment in time
… some people are thinking differently than they may
have had to in the past
… we're obligated to be practical and serve the
community
… even for people who might be at risk for who they
contact in some contexts
… we should be sensitive to the concern that Tantek
raised even if some may wish it were raised differently
<Ralph> "local law enforcement or other emergency service"
<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/141/b0398dc...tantek:57b7ddf.html
Ralph: For the first sentence it should say law enforcement or other emergency services
Tzviya: How about switching the order
Ralph: OK with that
<tzviya> proposal: s/contact emergency services or local services
Judy: Emergency services is
the right umbrella term
… despite the problems with law enforcement; unless
you document with law enforcement - the ability to follow-up with
the rest of CEPC is limited
… having that hook in place may be important to retain
… the last thing is closest to most efficacious
Wendy: I don't know an
example where you have to call law enforcement separately
… in Canada, when you call 911, the first people that
come are the fire department
… trained for first aid
… they can call for police officers if needed
… more accurate to call emergency services
… this laboring reinforces the political
<Ralph> propose "... contact local emergency services or law enforcement. ... contact venue staff for assistance contacting local services."
Judy: You may be assuming a
more coherent system then much of the world
… in this country it depends on state or town
… other countries are less predictable
… maybe even within Canada
… that's why I like the Tzviya/Ralph language
… an umbrella and a hook
… avoids AC re-review
Tzviya: Even in the US
… no 911 where I lived as a child
<Ralph> propose "... contact local emergency services or law enforcement. ... contact venue staff for assistance contacting local services."
<tzviya> +1
Tzviya: Do we like this?
Judy: Better than what was
there
… no AC re-review
… respectful way to address comment that was made
Jeff: I believe this should
be viewed as editorial
… separately work needs to be done on the Disposition
of Comments
propose: "If you are concerned about your immediate safety, contact [local emergency services or law enforcement]. For a face to face event you may need to contact venue staff for assistance contacting local services."
<tzviya> +1
<Ralph> +1
<jeff> +1
<Judy> +1
<jorydotcom> +1
Tzviya: so resolved
<wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/143
Tzviya: this improves the CEPC; it is more all-encompassing
Judy: "given multiple considerations, we've added the phrase "emergency services"
Jeff: the assertion that
"law enforcement is harmful" may be viewed differently in different
parts of the world so we felt that removing "law enforcement" would be
viewed as substantive
… however, Mozilla is welcome to [re]propose that for
a future revision
<tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/142/b0398dc...tantek:4a55f9a.html
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to ask a question about caste
#142 add caste to section 3.2 first list
Tzviya: if we add "caste" should we also add "class" ?
Jeff: I mostly view this as
editorial
… and note that "caste" does appear in Mozilla's Code
of Conduct
… in my limited experience "caste" is most closely
associated with India and certainly in India we would not
discriminate on caste
… but how is that used now in India; is referring to
caste acceptable? do we know how this would be received there?
Judy: my understanding from conversation with close friends is that using "caste" as it had been used historically is no longer accepted, but the practice of caste discrimination is still widespread, paralleling issues around racial discrimination in some countries
Judy: I would support adding "caste" based on my conversations with Indian friends and colleagues
<Zakim> jorydotcom, you wanted to ask if caste would need to be defined?
Jory: "caste" is a word that is not well-understood outside of India; does it need a definition?
Tzviya: I think the word is fairly widely understood
Judy: my understanding is that "class" could be considered a parallel issue in many countries
Tzviya: it was my idea to add "class" after reading Tantek's suggestion to add "caste"
<Zakim> jeff, you wanted to not support adding class
Tzviya: I think these would improve CEPC but do not think it's essential
Jeff: not having
discrimination on caste is clearly law in India
… I'm uncomfortable adding "class" now as editorial as
it is somewhat ill-defined
… I think it would be prudent to wait until we have a
more careful definition of the word
<wendyreid> +1
propose: add "caste"
<Judy> +1
<Ralph> +1
<tzviya> +1
<jorydotcom> +1
Tzviya: so resolved
Tzviya: what's next in finalizing this?
Jeff: get a Director's
Decision
… I'm certain the Director has delegated this decision
to W3M
Next meeting
Tzviya: we are scheduled to meet again on 14 July
Jeff: on behalf of W3C, thanks to everyone who participated in this, starting with Tzviya
Tzviya: thank you all for your participation