Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2021-06-08
Zotero update
Jemma: how are we going to maintain the library, and how to grow the library?
… I found a great use case from harvard business review, thought it could be added to the PWE zotero library
… Two questions.. permission to add the resource?
… I'm comfortable with my capability to do it
… but it's the group's library
… what is the process to add?
… Second, harvard business review requires access, more than 3 free materials. As a university employee I can access them becuase we have subscription
… But if we want to add an article and someone doesn't have access to the subscription
… how will we deal with that?
… For w3c Silver, now WCAG 3 library, the research is done, but for this group the zotero library should continue to grow
… so what is our reason for growing the library?
Liz_Lutgendorff: as well as growing, how about removing things?
… Any suggestions?
mallory: on zotero, how I've handled it with other groups is someone who does have access to a paywalled article pays for it once and then it's placed in storage, which is possible with zotero
… depends on the license
<Jemma> https://
mallory: and possible ot set up with webdav so you don't have to have a zotero subscription, you can set up your own drive
… I feel it's fair to pay for the article once and for the people who are collaborating to access the PDF
<mallory> Sorry I'm new to the various processes and didn't mean to skip the queue
Liz_Lutgendorff: any ability to say access needed or paywall on any of the zotero [..]
Judy: .... emphasise articels that are shareable. If certain resources are critical to note those and make it clear what permissions are
… rather than trying to share a document without full permission
<Jemma> current zotero Group Library settings are 1)Public, Closed Membership
<Jemma> 2) Anyone can view, only members can edit
Judy: Suggest to emphaisise ones that are free and open
… Note: a few of us who wanted to gather and talk about some of the details of managing the library and using the library, getting it out there for the community
… I got tasked with scheduling that
… I haven't been able to yet
… But great to get some broad direction
… also eager to tie that with how do we use this resource for the entire broad w3c community
mallory: we hav eknowledge available that's free and open, but Ithink it may not be one of the goals of this project to uplift research or other resources that are in the public domain or have a specific license
… seems orthogonal
… worth figuring out how to pay for the research because its relevant, or to pay for relevant subscriptions
… w3c is such a large organisation that closed access wouldn'tw ork in the sense that somebody could request access to that storage because theyve noticed something and don't want to pay themselves, if it's too large for that then the w3c should pay fees for the subscriptions necessary
… it's one or the other
… that would be in alignment with the goal of having this zotero library
Liz_Lutgendorff: that's going into a whole area
… if we want to start curating this relatively quickly that we see that as a secondary thing, maybe as part of Judy's overall structure
… in th emean time, possibly default to raising awareness that it's a paid for article and you might not have access, see how that goes
… and as we develop it further look into paid access
… I recokon w3m would not go for it
… we should start small and iterate on what we an add to it later
<mallory> I suspect there isn't wide demand fwiw
<DKA> +1 support starting small and iterating
Liz_Lutgendorff: I don't want to add complication
… I'd rather progress this
<DKA> +1 to progressing
Liz_Lutgendorff: see that as another part of the work
… is it possible to flag on zotero that something requires paid access?
Jemma: I can find out. Not a flag, but when you try to access the article it'll require login
… Think about indicating you need to pay to access an article?
Liz_Lutgendorff: yes, user friendly
Jemma: I can find out
<mallory> And so it follows that this means downloading a paywalled article and putting it in shared storage.
Liz_Lutgendorff: getting a process in place and iterating is probably the quickest way to
Jemma: action item for me?
Liz_Lutgendorff: find if there's a flag, if we can't we live with it
Judy: How easier or hard do people want this to be?
Jemma: That's my question too
<annette_g> +1 to a little vetting
Judy: Let's say you find something you want to share, are people comfortable with that going through some vetting, or is that too difficult, or easy enough
<sheila> +1 to light vetting
Liz_Lutgendorff: Basically, some vetting, or do some people have carte blanche, or a full review process
DKA: I just wanted to say it makes sense to me that there would be some review of anything that's posted
… similar to reviewing PRs on Github
… it should be lightweight though
Judy: Lightweight and quick
Liz_Lutgendorff: I agree with that as well
Jemma: I think we need to discuss the details, but we can handle it offline
Liz_Lutgendorff: What are we doing with this library?
Jemma: I gave you a comparison of the Silver library
… this library is different from that case
… but we can also discuss this later
Liz_Lutgendorff: Are there any strong feelingso n this, a mission statement for the library
annette_g: We might want to have this for people who need resources on understanding when they've been told their in violation of something
<sheila> I like the idea of guidelines so as not to risk arbitrary application of rules
annette_g: generally, for myself, it's always good to have access to information on positive work environment subjects
Liz_Lutgendorff: That's a good direction, any other thoughts
<Judy> [JB finds this very helpful input as to goals of a resource library]
BarbaraH: I look at it as is this a program or strategy
… having the articles in a library, that's a tool
… to be more proactive, the question becomes educating on specific topics
… using it as a tool in case of a violation
… I was wondering if the library is one component in a strategy on being proactive on DEI initiatives
Judy: I sure hope so!
… this is something we need to put into place
BarbaraH: When you have a proactive program, you can cite the library
Judy: There can be multiple ways to bring this out
… different promotion strategies
annette_g: I hope this will not be just a substitute for action, reading as substitute
Jemma: I want to understand what is the next step for this
Liz_Lutgendorff: This is mostly going to Judy for the offline discussion, but mainly, what is the library for, what is the process for adding to it
… it could be reactive and proactive
… it could increase inclusion, but also as a tool for people to educate themselves in case of a violation or curiousity
… a short summary of how this will work at a future meeting will be great
Zotero update (Jemma) Criteria for adding resources which include content copyright, authority, frequency + Growth and sustainability plan
Issue: https://
<hober> PR: https://
<BarbaraH> Article on building an Inclusive Workplace - Possible framework - https://
Liz_Lutgendorff: Pr is open to add detail about unproductive discussion
hober: I wrote it, so I'm happy to speak to it
… issue 150 was filed a while ago
… W3C has existed for 25+ years
… when it was smaller and everyone knew each other
… we were able to rely on everyone knowing each other, a shared vision, the original CEPC was much shorter and reflective of that small community
… that era is in our past
… not a bad thing, W3C has grown and changed
… we now are in a phase where we need to capture in writing what we've taken for granted, a shared understanding
… in particular, over time, we've seen a number of efforts or participants who might have taken advantage of that presumed good faith
… to engage in well-document forms of anti-social or trollish behaviour
… it's always been the case that groups have had the ability to control how to make their meetings productive (ie. time boxing)
… CEPC already has a line about sustained disruption
… but this PR fleshes that out a bit
… since CEPC already has the line, the chairs are empowered, but this expansion helps with the "rules lawyer" type who might see an absence of detail and take advantage
… this is my attempt to address that
… I added some well-known and document behaviours
… I tried to keep it to the category raised in the issue
… it defines and adds text making it clear that behaviours like sealioning, gishgalloping, concern trolling, etc
… aren't welcome
Liz_Lutgendorff: Thanks for spelling them out
hober: It's important to describe them, plus give a term that someone can research
… I've also included resources in the comments within the code
DKA: +1 to the PR
… it's necessary and consistent with the approach of the new CEPC
… explains behaviours, makes expectations clear
+1 what Dan said
DKA: as a chair this would have been helpful to me
… it's good for chairs to know the rules are on their side when exercising chair authority
… to reorient dicussions
… I think the references section can be used for these
… especially for these terms who are familiar with these tersm from the english internet, but others may not be as familiar
… having references helps underscore that we're not making these things up
… I don't want to gate the PR, but we should internationalize this a bit
… translations that are appropriate and contextual
… I support this PR
tink: I think we should merge this PR
… I want to emphasize hober's point that this is not changing anything in the CEPC, it's providing clarity and explanation
… it's more inclusive and accessible to users to provide clarity on these behaviours
Judy: This was really interesting, my first reaction was oh no more jargon
… but the definitions really help to explain and capture the meta-behaviours
… also agree with making these more internationalized and understandable
… but strongly support adding this information
… procedurally, the CEPC went through multiple layers of review
… we can incorporate PRs to future revisions
… but there would be process for updating the formal version of the document
annette_g: Definitely for making these changes
… all of those items on that list, are defined in rational wiki
… it's not just us
hober: In the PR there's links to rational wiki and geek feminism
… I think it does make sense to surface the links in text
… I am happy to do that
<Judy> s/yes I learned these new terms today although/yet in reviewing the collection of terms I thought/
Liz_Lutgendorff: I'm hearing all agreement
… is there anyone who doesn't think we should go forward with this request
Judy: Just to cycle back
<sheila> strong +1 to merging this PR. thanks to everyone who has pushed for it.
Judy: these kinds of terms, because they're so jargon-y, they may be an internationalization barrier
… is there a way to bridge them
… to make the more welcoming
hober: I hear the concern, each line describes the behaviour, then references the colloquial term
… which is in english, but so is the CEPC
… I'm not sure what else to do
… I definitely think there's an argument for expanding some, but trying to make it fit with the same level of detail other items
… I'm happy to amend them to make them more understandable
Liz_Lutgendorff: I agree, adding more text makes it more difficult
<DKA> I think you've hit the right balance.
annette_g: I think Tess did a good job of matching the style of the others
… the links provide a fair amount of description
<chaals> [Think that the addition is a net improvement, and we should resolve to merge this]
hober: The only reason I didn't add the links as anchors was I wasn't sure if that would fit with the rest of the CEPC
… wasn't sure what the etiquette was
<DKA> +1 to links
tink: suspect it depends if we classify the links as normative references
… we treat them the same as technical reports
… the references are relatively stable and not likely to change
hober: linking to these are informative
<DKA> +1 to adding informative links.
Liz_Lutgendorff: I think everyone thinks this needs to be a bit more descriptive, and add the links
tink: Let's create a proposal for everyone to vote on
<tink> Proposal: On the basis that this Pull Request (PR) provides explanation for an existing part of the CEPC, that it can be further iterated in future, and that the CEPC itself will undergo formal review by the membership before it is published, we should merge this PR.
+1
<annette_g> +1
+1
<sheila> +1
<hober> +1
<DKA> +1
<Liz_Lutgendorff> +1
<Jemma> +100
<tink> +1
<chaals> +1
CEPC PR https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/171 - review and merge
<Judy> +1
<Nishad_> +1
Resolution: On the basis that this Pull Request (PR) provides explanation for an existing part of the CEPC, that it can be further iterated in future, and that the CEPC itself will undergo formal review by the membership before it is published, we should merge this PR.
Resolution: On the basis that this Pull Request (PR) provides explanation for an existing part of the CEPC, that it can be further iterated in future, and that the CEPC itself will undergo formal review by the membership before it is published, we will merge this PR.
<Zakim> tink, you wanted to suggest we propose a resolution.
<Zakim> chaals, you wanted to note we can merge this, then discuss linking...
Survey updates (Tobie - will send materials in advance)
Liz_Lutgendorff: Diversity grants, judges should be members, disclose any relationships, and have time to participate
… keep it light
… isn't too onerous for the people involved
PWE Diversity Fund Committee formation
Liz_Lutgendorff: Happy to hear any suggestions or volunteers
… happy to volunteer myself, since I worked on it and I don't know anyone!
<wseltzer> +1 to Liz
Liz_Lutgendorff: comments?
Jemma: I received the email from Tzviya, asking to be one of the members, I would like to be one of the members
… timeframe works for me
<chaals> [I am volunteering]
Liz_Lutgendorff: If you really want to volunteer please but your name forward
… Charles is volunteering
… we just wanted to limited the people seeing all of the volunteers
wseltzer: I was supporting your nomination!
Liz_Lutgendorff: I'll email everyone and begin planning
… Jemma, Charles, and Me
Judy: Wendy S's suggestion for a team representation/liaison
… it will be interesting at least in the first year to have someone helping
Liz_Lutgendorff: We have the members from W3M as well, that's whats in the proposal
Judy: Maybe not necessary, but don't need to debate it here
Liz_Lutgendorff: We can have a chat afterwards to see what worked and what didn't
Jemma: How many applicants do we usually get?
tink: Last year we had just 2
… previously closer to 10
chaals: I can't recall exactly, it is a few hours of work
Liz_Lutgendorff: I will make it easy for you Jemma, I'll make a spreadshet
… 2-3 hours max for deciding
… there's a lot in the fund, so we'll likely fund most people
… should be an easy decision
Judy: Having been involved before, allocate more time, they're not always clear-cut and sometimes require some though, or unanticipated questions
chaals: +1
Liz_Lutgendorff: The meeting of the people will be shorter, but we'll review the applications on our own before
… we'll talk offline to schedule the time needed
AOB
Liz_Lutgendorff: No AOB? Let us know if you have anything for the next meeting