14:55:19 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
14:55:23 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc
14:55:23 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:24 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:55:30 <wendyreid> chair: wendyreid
14:55:37 <wendyreid> date: 2023-02-28
14:57:38 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
15:00:27 <cwilso> present+
15:00:46 <wendyreid> present+
15:02:16 <dbooth> present+
15:02:18 <Ralph> present+
15:03:51 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2023Feb/0002.html
15:04:14 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/246
15:04:19 <dbooth> Present+ Nick Doty
15:04:21 <Ralph> topic: Preamble to CEPC
15:04:24 <Ralph> scribe+
15:05:09 <npdoty> npdoty has joined #pwe
15:05:34 <dbooth> q+
15:05:41 <npdoty> q+
15:05:42 <cwilso> q+
15:05:45 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:05:45 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think i'ts resolved! and to
15:05:45 <npdoty> present+
15:05:53 <Ralph> Wendy: the idea is to recite this at the start of meetings to remind people of CEPC
15:06:06 <Ralph> DBooth: thanks for clarifying the purpose
15:06:22 <Ralph> ... I felt that repeating what is in the main document doesn't help
15:06:32 <wendyreid> ack npdoty
15:06:35 <Ralph> ... I like the idea but could it point to parts of the document instead?
15:06:50 <Ralph> Nick: I think it's a useful step
15:07:17 <Ralph> ... "How to Use" is important; reading the entire thing every meeting isn't practical
15:07:36 <Ralph> ... I don't think we'd want to number the sections; we don't have a goal to prioritize
15:07:48 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:07:49 <Ralph> ... we should keep it short and not attempt to restate everything or to prioritize
15:08:12 <Ralph> Chris: mostly agree with Nick and David; this isn't something chairs would read -- the whole thing would take 8 minutes
15:08:32 <Ralph> ... it's important to give a clear boilerplate of what _should_ be read at every meeting
15:08:41 <Ralph> ... "this is the goal; some details are over here"
15:08:43 <dbooth> +1 to chris's comment
15:09:00 <Ralph> Wendy: I can further clarify How to Use
15:09:15 <npdoty> q+
15:09:16 <dbooth> q+ to suggest that we decide a target length
15:09:20 <Ralph> ... and change the ordered list to a bullet list
15:09:28 <wendyreid> ack npdoty
15:09:30 <Ralph> ... we definitely didn't intend that the entire thing be read
15:09:36 <Ralph> Nick: where is this document going?
15:09:47 <Ralph> ... should I comment further in the PR?
15:09:58 <Ralph> Wendy: it will probably stay in this repo
15:10:04 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:10:04 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest that we decide a target length
15:10:04 <Ralph> ... it might be added to /Guide
15:10:28 <Ralph> DBooth: it would be good to decide how long each moderator should speak about it and use that as a target
15:10:35 <Ralph> Wendy: under 2 mins probably
15:10:38 <cwilso> q+
15:10:41 <Ralph> ... it doesn't need to be read weekly
15:10:53 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:11:01 <Ralph> ... if you are starting a new cycle of [group] meetings or have a lot of new participants, or a workshop event
15:11:11 <npdoty> yeah, we might ask other chairs, but I think a few sentences at the beginning of the meeting is typical/accessible. maybe 1 minute at the beginning of every group meeting?
15:11:12 <Ralph> Chris: I really like the idea of saying "here is an intro to the CEPC"
15:11:33 <Ralph> ... I might sugggest an elevator pitch; why is CEPC important, or what are the "surprising" parts
15:11:37 <Ralph> s/ggg/gg
15:11:53 <Ralph> ... e.g. the safety vs comfort point is really important
15:12:11 <dbooth> q+ to suggest two separate narrations: One for the first time at a meeting; a second to be read (or done)  at each meeting
15:12:13 <npdoty> +1 to including "surprising parts" in the short callouts
15:12:33 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:12:33 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest two separate narrations: One for the first time at a meeting; a second to be read (or done)  at each meeting
15:12:42 <Ralph> ... I might think someone is making a completely wrong point in a meeting and I can say that respectfully, though they might still be offended
15:12:58 <Ralph> DBooth: one version for the start of a new meeting series or when a bunch of new people ljoin
15:13:06 <Ralph> ... and a second version for the start of every meeting
15:13:16 <Ralph> ... I like the notion of highlighting one portion of the Code at each meeting
15:13:35 <Ralph> Wendy: we can try to come up with an initial and a more casual version
15:14:01 <Ralph> DBooth: "initial" vs "ongoing"
15:14:11 <dbooth> Or Initial vs periodic
15:14:19 <Ralph> Wendy: we'll use these comments and make another revision
15:14:48 <Ralph> DBooth: "preamble" isn't quite the right name for this; let's come up with a better one
15:14:58 <Ralph> Wendy: "Intro to CEPC" perhaps
15:15:04 <npdoty> I'm happy to have some brief repetition; rarely are the exact same people attending each meeting, and sometimes people need reminders in order to adjust behaviors
15:15:07 <wendyreid> Topic: AC Moderation
15:15:10 <wendyreid> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/21-ac-minutes.html
15:15:43 <Ralph> Wendy: I attended one of the Member Meeting sessions last week where there was discussion of the w3c-ac-forum mailing list
15:15:57 <Ralph> ... sometimes that list is quiet, sometimes it is very busy and not always with a positive tenor
15:16:09 <Ralph> ... there was discussion of introducing a concept of moderation to the list
15:16:21 <Ralph> ... to maintain positive conversation
15:16:35 <Ralph> ... and when the list is quiet to figure out how to engage members more
15:16:59 <dbooth> q+ to ask what is being requested of this group regarding the AC list?
15:17:34 <npdoty> q+ for us to provide recommendations about all groups and all lists, and include the AC list
15:17:35 <Ralph> Chris: there was some request to have moderation on ac-forum
15:17:41 <Ralph> ... what form that would take is an open question
15:17:52 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:17:52 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what is being requested of this group regarding the AC list?
15:17:52 <Ralph> ... this lies somewhere between PWE CG and the AB
15:18:01 <Ralph> DBooth: was there a specific ask of this group?
15:18:11 <wendyreid> ack npdoty
15:18:11 <Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to discuss us to provide recommendations about all groups and all lists, and include the AC list
15:18:41 <Ralph> Nick: the exact role of this CG is not certain but I would like us to provide a recommendation for all groups and all lists
15:18:43 <cwilso> q+
15:18:49 <Ralph> ... that all mailing lists should be moderated
15:18:58 <Ralph> ... set that expectation for the Team and for all groups
15:19:05 <Ralph> ... ac-forum is not currently moderated
15:19:11 <wendyreid> cwilso:
15:19:17 <Ralph> ... I'd like us to recommend to the AB that they nominate someone to moderate that list
15:19:17 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:19:54 <Ralph> Chris: I see in the minutes that Avneesh suggested this is about moderating, not chairing
15:19:57 <dbooth> q+ to agree with moderating all list.  Each list carries a responsibility.
15:20:08 <Ralph> ... part of my role at Google is to do the moderation, both internally and externally
15:20:08 <wendyreid> q+
15:20:14 <Ralph> ... that's a really hard role in such an open-ended forum
15:20:23 <Ralph> ... I worry how to set the bar
15:20:38 <Ralph> ... one of the challenges noted in the minutes is how to be concise; some emails are long-winded
15:20:55 <Ralph> ... how do you steer and moderate a conversation without shutting people down?
15:21:18 <Ralph> ... I've seen cases of very close moderation and that feels exclusionary
15:21:23 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:21:23 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to agree with moderating all list.  Each list carries a responsibility.
15:21:34 <Ralph> DBooth: I agree that every list should be moderated; that should be a default
15:21:42 <Ralph> ... every list that is created creates a responsibility
15:21:44 <wendyreid> ack wendyreid
15:21:45 <npdoty> i agree that it will be difficult, and that we will learn a lot as we practice it more
15:21:48 <Ralph> ... but I suggest light-handed moderation
15:22:23 <Ralph> Wendy: I once suggested moderation of a list I was on and that blew up, resulting in many people leaving the list
15:22:50 <Ralph> ... people hear "moderator" and have several reactions; some think it is shutting down discussion, some think it's too late
15:23:22 <cwilso> q+
15:23:32 <Ralph> ... the intent of a moderator is to keep the tenor in a right direction
15:23:47 <dbooth> I recommend moderating for Code violations , but not generally against long-windedness.
15:23:47 <Ralph> ... we probably should write some guidelines for list moderators
15:24:10 <dbooth> +1 to the idea of writing up moderation guidance
15:24:10 <Ralph> ... one suggestion from the meeting was to rotate the responsibility at 3 month intervals
15:24:11 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:24:15 <Ralph> ... so it's not too heavy on any one person
15:24:19 <npdoty> +1 for rotation (though I thought 1 month was way too brief a suggestion; maybe 1 year?)
15:24:33 <Ralph> Chris: +1 to writing some guidance
15:24:43 <dbooth> -1 to the idea of rotation
15:24:51 <Ralph> ... there are different levels of expectation on what we want from moderation
15:25:11 <dbooth> q+ to explain why I think moderation should not be rotated -- at least not frequently
15:25:55 <Ralph> ... addressing the problem that people who are reluctant to jump into long threads may lead to a moderator having to restrict people who write a lot
15:26:37 <Ralph> ... I read through a recent message claiming a CEPC violation and determined that while the instance was not pleasant, it didn't violate CEPC
15:26:54 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:26:54 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to explain why I think moderation should not be rotated -- at least not frequently
15:27:01 <Ralph> ... it would be nice to have a "tone crossing guard"; someone who encourages discourse in the right direction
15:27:13 <Ralph> DBooth: -1 to rotating moderators, at least on a rapid basis
15:27:29 <npdoty> q+
15:27:33 <Ralph> ... this is incongruous with light-touch moderation
15:27:40 <cwilso> +1 that there will be a fair amount of learning needed in moderation
15:27:46 <Ralph> ... rotation implies moderation requires a lot of work
15:27:55 <Ralph> ... and there's a learning curve to light moderation
15:28:07 <Ralph> ... moderation should only happen in cases of CEPC violations
15:28:13 <wendyreid> ack npdoty
15:28:16 <Ralph> ... long-winded emails should not normally trigger moderation
15:28:32 <Ralph> Nick: I support moderation but agree it should not be frequent moderation
15:28:49 <Ralph> ... moderation is useful so it doesn't become someone "in charge"
15:29:07 <Ralph> ... I'm hearing there might be interest in a work item to provide some recommendations
15:29:31 <Ralph> ... maybe it's just a paragraph or maybe it's a document
15:29:55 <Ralph> Wendy: I think the default is the chair but maybe there's an intermediate level for people who don't yet feel ready to chair
15:30:13 <Ralph> ... I wouldn't want moderation guidance to be heavy-handed
15:30:28 <Ralph> ... "here are some things you might want to be aware of as a moderator"
15:30:45 <Ralph> ... things you might want to say when someone is starting to step out of line
15:30:49 <dbooth> q+ to say I don't see moderation as a route to chairing, because that would lead to overly active moderation
15:30:55 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:30:55 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I don't see moderation as a route to chairing, because that would lead to overly active moderation
15:30:57 <Ralph> ... it shouldn't be long
15:31:02 <npdoty> chair can be the default moderator, but there can be other moderators
15:31:11 <Ralph> DBooth: I'd be cautious as viewing moderation as a route to chairing
15:31:27 <Ralph> Wendy: I think of it as an opportunity to increased responsibility
15:31:49 <Ralph> ... e.g. some groups have task force chairs as a route to more responsibility
15:32:05 <Ralph> DBooth: we don't want a moderator who is aspiring to be a chair
15:32:11 <dbooth> q+ To volunteer to draft something
15:32:16 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:32:16 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to volunteer to draft something
15:32:26 <npdoty> happy to help review
15:32:26 <Ralph> ... I volunteer to start drafting something
15:32:40 <Ralph> Wendy: great; do a markdown document and open a PR
15:32:46 <Ralph> ... "Moderation Guidance"
15:32:50 <dbooth> ACTION: David to draft moderation guidance
15:32:58 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls
15:33:02 <wendyreid> Topic: Open PRs
15:33:52 <Ralph> -> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/227 ins "and" #227
15:34:04 <Ralph> Chris: #227 seems easy to merge!
15:34:10 <Ralph> Wendy: yep; doesn't seem contentious
15:34:12 <dbooth> +1 to merggoing 227
15:34:23 <npdoty> 243 also seems easy/useful to merge
15:34:50 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/243
15:35:11 <Ralph> Wendy: I think I've address most of the comments on #243
15:35:12 <dbooth> q+ to note outstanding renaming question
15:35:21 <npdoty> +1 to merging 243
15:35:29 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:35:29 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to note outstanding renaming question
15:36:08 <Ralph> DBooth: on the last call we discussed renaming and whether to use the word "Professional"
15:36:19 <Ralph> ... that would slightly affect the wording
15:36:29 <npdoty> yeah, once we re-name, we will need to re-name in many places :)
15:36:38 <Ralph> Wendy: I have another PR that shows what it would look like to change "CEPC" to "Code of Conduct"
15:37:00 <Ralph> ... is the contributing practice clear?
15:37:33 <cwilso> +1
15:37:42 <Ralph> DBooth: I had some suggestions
15:37:50 <Ralph> Wendy: I think I addressed all but the renaming one
15:38:10 <dbooth> LGTM!
15:38:25 <npdoty> grammatically, I think " We ask that participants do not open" would typically be " We ask that participants not open"
15:38:28 <dbooth> +1 to merging
15:39:22 <dbooth> q+
15:39:33 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:39:33 <Ralph> Wendy: I'll fix "... do not open" and merge
15:39:50 <Ralph> DBooth: a mistake I made was to submit a large set of issues all at once
15:40:13 <Ralph> ... should we ask people not to submit all at once?
15:40:25 <Ralph> Wendy: I would not want someone to forget to submit their issue
15:40:42 <Ralph> ... I would much rather have all the issues and then decide how to work through them
15:41:01 <Ralph> ... we can figure out how to deal with a large bunch of issues
15:41:01 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/238
15:41:03 <Ralph> DBooth: OK
15:41:44 <wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237/files
15:41:49 <dbooth> +q
15:41:58 <Ralph> Wendy: #232 is about removing patronizing language; there are two approaches
15:42:04 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:42:58 <Ralph> DBooth: the background on my suggested rewording is in part some confusion between things that are definitely patronizing and some that may be perceived as patronizing
15:43:10 <Ralph> ... can we get a sense of which general approach the group prefers?
15:43:37 <Ralph> Wendy: David's comments helped me figure out an issue I had that I had not been able to articulate
15:43:55 <Ralph> ... previously we had the patronizing language section as part of microaggression
15:44:23 <Ralph> ... but patronizing language can apply in other cases, so I decided to move it out from under microaggression
15:44:34 <Ralph> ... the second part is to define what it means to be patronizing
15:44:50 <Ralph> ... if you make too many assumptions about people that can lead to patronizing behavior
15:45:21 <Ralph> ... I also decided to remove some of the examples; it's not always the case that a specific phrase indicates someone is being patronizing
15:45:26 <Ralph> ... it's context-dependent
15:45:36 <Ralph> ... that is the approach I tried to take
15:45:46 <Ralph> DBooth: fine to move the patronizing section
15:46:03 <npdoty> I tend to like the organization of 237, having different sub-lists for patronizing and microagressions
15:46:10 <Ralph> ... I agree that "well, actually ..." isn't necessarily patronizing but it's a trigger phrase for some
15:46:18 <wendyreid> q?
15:46:21 <Ralph> ... I was glad to learn that it can be a trigger phrase
15:46:46 <Ralph> ... on examples: I like having them, particularly examples I can learn from
15:47:05 <Ralph> ... examples have to be clear on why they are included or be explained why they are included
15:47:19 <Ralph> ... "well, actually..." needed explanation for me
15:47:57 <Ralph> Wendy: any preferences for which PR to merge?
15:48:02 <dbooth> q+ to ask if the gorup thinks we should move the patronizing section
15:48:06 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:48:06 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask if the gorup thinks we should move the patronizing section
15:48:59 <wendyreid> ack Ralph
15:48:59 <Ralph> Chris: I'm on the fence
15:49:11 <wendyreid> Ralph: My intuition is that it lives better on its own
15:49:19 <dbooth> ralph: Patronizing Lives better on its own.
15:49:42 <cwilso> q+
15:49:45 <wendyreid> ... you might not have intended an aggression, but all of CEPC is often unintended, but it's useful to distinguish between microagressions intended or otherwise
15:50:11 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:50:18 <dbooth> q+ to suggest I  move that part in pr 238
15:50:21 <Ralph> Chris: thinking through a test case ...
15:50:35 <Ralph> ... there was definitely patronizing language in use
15:51:00 <Ralph> ... after discussing it with the person who felt affected, it wasn't a repeated pattern; it was a single instance of a microaggression
15:51:39 <Ralph> ... so there would be a light-handed response: "what you just said was condescending"
15:51:39 <Ralph> ... all of the things under microaggression are sort-of patronizing behaviour
15:51:57 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:51:57 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest I  move that part in pr 238
15:52:04 <Ralph> ... but they should not be "gotten over" when they are continued patterns
15:52:13 <Ralph> DBooth: I'm fine either way; moving or not
15:52:43 <Ralph> ... the differences I tried to make in my PR #238 was to change how "well, actually ..." was being described and dropped the "grandmother" example
15:53:03 <Ralph> ... I specifically tried to highlight "thug" as something that now carries racial undertones to some
15:53:27 <Ralph> Wendy: for #238 I'd keep the trigger phrases
15:53:46 <Ralph> ... I'd like to move away from using examples of offensive language
15:54:20 <Ralph> ... patronizing language becomes more of a problem when it is repeated
15:54:26 <dbooth> q+ to understand why examples of offensive language feels wrong?
15:54:39 <wendyreid> ack dbooth
15:54:39 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to understand why examples of offensive language feels wrong?
15:54:57 <Ralph> DBooth: why don't you want to include examples of offensive language?
15:54:57 <cwilso> q+
15:55:26 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
15:55:29 <Ralph> Wendy: my personal view: I don't like reinforcing offensive language by using it
15:55:35 <Ralph> Chris: I hear that concern
15:56:11 <Ralph> ... one of the challenges is that for some of these terms there is no initial concept to reinforce
15:56:55 <Ralph> ... I'm sure I've used some of these phrases in the past before it was pointed out to me that they have certain undertones to some
15:57:08 <Ralph> ... when you don't have the background of those connotations it's useful to point them out
15:57:54 <Ralph> Wendy: I understand; there's value in learning the background of some of these
15:58:17 <Ralph> ... e.g. I'm working on learning to avoid ableist language
15:58:45 <Ralph> ... we're learning every day about history of some terms
15:59:03 <dbooth> ACTION: David to move patronizing section in PR 238
15:59:09 <Ralph> Wendy: productive session ;thank you
15:59:12 <Ralph> [adjourned]
15:59:15 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
15:59:15 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been dbooth, cwilso, wendyreid, uxjennifer, tzviya, npd, Ralph, Nick, Doty, npdoty
15:59:18 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:59:20 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:59:28 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:59:28 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:59:38 <wendyreid> rrsagent, bye
15:59:38 <RRSAgent> I see 2 open action items saved in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-actions.rdf :
15:59:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: David to draft moderation guidance [1]
15:59:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc#T15-32-50
15:59:38 <RRSAgent> ACTION: David to move patronizing section in PR 238 [2]
15:59:38 <RRSAgent>   recorded in https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc#T15-59-03
15:59:38 <Ralph> present: DBooth, CWilso, WendyReid, NickDoty, Ralph
15:59:42 <Ralph> regrets: Tzviya
16:00:49 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
16:00:49 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-irc
16:00:54 <Ralph> present: DBooth, CWilso, WendyReid, NickDoty, Ralph
16:01:12 <Ralph> rrsagent, please make record public
16:01:16 <Ralph> rrsagent, please draft minutes
16:01:18 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/02/28-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
16:01:29 <wendyreid> Zakim is such a gentlebot now
16:02:02 <wendyreid> rrsagent, bye
16:02:02 <RRSAgent> I see no action items