– DRAFT –
PWE

<tzviya> Date: 2023-01-17

Open Issues on CEPC

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/223

<sheila> tzviya: someone opened several issues. Some are really meaningful

<sheila> tzviya: first says "called the Code of Ethics and professional conduct but doesn't mention anything about ethics." We inherited this name, some felt strongly we should retain it, maybe we should discuss changing it in the future

<annette_g> +1 to Chris

<sheila> cwilso: Have to agree with this comment. Have always considered CEPC to be a tongue-twisting way to refer to it. Would be ok to keep the name and plan to rename in the next year or so but may just want to rename it

<sheila> tzviya: we encountered some issues that included ethics, and actively decided not to include them. Seems like we agree to change it to code of conduct. Would want to wait for next publication and will take some URL changing

<sheila> annette_g: curious why the group decided not to include ethics.

<tzviya> ACM https://www.acm.org/code-of-ethics

<sheila> tzviya: Two different categories. Code of conduct is how people behave, whereas code of ethics refers more to some of the language included in the document. Got so lengthy and seemed to hide some of the main points we were getting at

<sheila> tzviya: the part that had to do with professional responsibilities was more about professional standards (like "be accurate') and how you interact with systems

<sheila> annette_g: My feeling is that it would be nice to have the code of conduct named the Code of Conduct

<sheila> annette_g: if we wanted to have a Code of Ethics, we could have a separate document

<sheila> cwilso: I like the proposed action of leaving it for another meeting just because I'd like to read through the ACM's Code of Ethics. Maybe cribbing from there would be a good thing because it covers ethical standards that we agree are important but aren't currently captured. Maybe that goes elsewhere but does seem like there's significant bits of ethics missing from our guidance. Not sure if that belongs in CEPC or what, so we should probably read t[CUT]

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/225

<sheila> tzviya: let's come back to this in a future meeting

<sheila> tzviya: New issue: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/225

<sheila> tzviya: In section about patronizing language within "microaggressions," very long discussion here. I believe David's point is if you assume people don't understand it's insulting.

<sheila> tzviya: people are sometimes asking for more prescriptive language in CEPC to better understand how it can be applied to their specifics. This is something we've discussed a lot.

<sheila> cwilso: the proper response is to capture the piece about not preassuming for certain groups a level of understanding based on irrelevant factors (like demographics)

<sheila> cwilso: has a suggestion about adding a clause like "based on irrelevant characteristics," covers what we have now while addressing the point of the issue

<sheila> annette_g: maybe put in terms of knowing your audience, rather than erring on one side or another. Don't want to talk down to people but also don't want to assume everyone is equally informed about a given topic. Suiting the audience correctly is maybe the message.

"Assuming that particular people or groups need concepts defined or explained to them without knowing your audience"

<sheila> cwilso: dropped an option, because key point was getting lost

<sheila> tzviya: once we get past basic concepts, I'm going to give an explanation so the few people in my audience who don't know, aren't lost. Example: describing how "a11y" is related to accessibility

<sheila> annette_g: One thing I think we're getting caught up here is phrase "particular people or groups." If your particular people or group is "know HTML" that's different than if it's about belonging to a certain demographic. Particular people or groups should be more about specifying what groups we're referring to

<sheila> annette_g: maybe give a description of the types of groups we're referring to

<sheila> annette_g: e.g. protected groups in the US

<Ralph> * Ralph q+ to point out that this text is a sub-sub-item under microaggression

<sheila> [discussion of Chris's proposed wording]

<tzviya> what about "Assuming that particular people or groups need concepts defined or explained to them."?

tzviya: "asking" is causing some issues?
… we can come back to this

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/226

tzviya: it was not apparent in the text that "well, actually" is a trigger term

<annette_g> cwilso: You want people to be conscious of speech patterns that affect others. I guess I would be okay with closing this issue. I'm not sure how I would recognize the next "well actually"?

tzviya: we can't document every term here...

<annette_g> I feel like it's clear in the original text.

+1

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/228

tzviya: I think we should close this. Please review

cwilso: I agree, this should be closed.

Ombuds package

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/DisputeResolution.md

<tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/blob/main/DraftOmbudsJobDescription.md

tzviya: we did not resolve who would select the interviewers. We just need to resolve on the details of the program; and where budget might come from.
… and does this need AC review

ralph: I agree this is something that the organization needs. It's not in the initial budget presented to the Board.

tzviya: does this need AC review?

cwilso: Perhaps we should take this to the AB to get their support?

tzviya: yes, let's do that.

https://www.w3.org/Consortium/pwe/

tzviya: the section called "procedures" is linked to from the Ombuds.
… we definitely need to update this
… it is woefully out of date.
… we need to designate an editor for this
… AOB?
… we (PWE) should probably come back to the AC-forum chairing idea