– DRAFT –
Positive Work Environment CG

<wendyreid> date: 2023-02-28

<wendyreid> w3c/PWETF#246

Preamble to CEPC

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think i'ts resolved! and to

Wendy: the idea is to recite this at the start of meetings to remind people of CEPC

DBooth: thanks for clarifying the purpose
… I felt that repeating what is in the main document doesn't help
… I like the idea but could it point to parts of the document instead?

Nick: I think it's a useful step
… "How to Use" is important; reading the entire thing every meeting isn't practical
… I don't think we'd want to number the sections; we don't have a goal to prioritize
… we should keep it short and not attempt to restate everything or to prioritize

Chris: mostly agree with Nick and David; this isn't something chairs would read -- the whole thing would take 8 minutes
… it's important to give a clear boilerplate of what _should_ be read at every meeting
… "this is the goal; some details are over here"

<dbooth> +1 to chris's comment

Wendy: I can further clarify How to Use
… and change the ordered list to a bullet list
… we definitely didn't intend that the entire thing be read

Nick: where is this document going?
… should I comment further in the PR?

Wendy: it will probably stay in this repo

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest that we decide a target length

Wendy: it might be added to /Guide

DBooth: it would be good to decide how long each moderator should speak about it and use that as a target

Wendy: under 2 mins probably
… it doesn't need to be read weekly
… if you are starting a new cycle of [group] meetings or have a lot of new participants, or a workshop event

<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?

Chris: I really like the idea of saying "here is an intro to the CEPC"
… I might suggest an elevator pitch; why is CEPC important, or what are the "surprising" parts
… e.g. the safety vs comfort point is really important

<npdoty> +1 to including "surprising parts" in the short callouts

<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

Chris: 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

DBooth: one version for the start of a new meeting series or when a bunch of new people ljoin
… and a second version for the start of every meeting
… I like the notion of highlighting one portion of the Code at each meeting

Wendy: we can try to come up with an initial and a more casual version

DBooth: "initial" vs "ongoing"

<dbooth> Or Initial vs periodic

Wendy: we'll use these comments and make another revision

DBooth: "preamble" isn't quite the right name for this; let's come up with a better one

Wendy: "Intro to CEPC" perhaps

<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

AC Moderation

<wendyreid> https://www.w3.org/2023/02/21-ac-minutes.html

Wendy: I attended one of the Member Meeting sessions last week where there was discussion of the w3c-ac-forum mailing list
… sometimes that list is quiet, sometimes it is very busy and not always with a positive tenor
… there was discussion of introducing a concept of moderation to the list
… to maintain positive conversation
… and when the list is quiet to figure out how to engage members more

Chris: there was some request to have moderation on ac-forum
… what form that would take is an open question

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask what is being requested of this group regarding the AC list?

Chris: this lies somewhere between PWE CG and the AB

DBooth: was there a specific ask of this group?

<Zakim> npdoty, you wanted to discuss us to provide recommendations about all groups and all lists, and include the AC list

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
… that all mailing lists should be moderated
… set that expectation for the Team and for all groups
… ac-forum is not currently moderated

<wendyreid> cwilso:

Nick: I'd like us to recommend to the AB that they nominate someone to moderate that list

Chris: I see in the minutes that Avneesh suggested this is about moderating, not chairing
… part of my role at Google is to do the moderation, both internally and externally
… that's a really hard role in such an open-ended forum
… I worry how to set the bar
… one of the challenges noted in the minutes is how to be concise; some emails are long-winded
… how do you steer and moderate a conversation without shutting people down?
… I've seen cases of very close moderation and that feels exclusionary

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to agree with moderating all list. Each list carries a responsibility.

DBooth: I agree that every list should be moderated; that should be a default
… every list that is created creates a responsibility

<npdoty> i agree that it will be difficult, and that we will learn a lot as we practice it more

DBooth: but I suggest light-handed moderation

Wendy: I once suggested moderation of a list I was on and that blew up, resulting in many people leaving the list
… people hear "moderator" and have several reactions; some think it is shutting down discussion, some think it's too late
… the intent of a moderator is to keep the tenor in a right direction

<dbooth> I recommend moderating for Code violations , but not generally against long-windedness.

Wendy: we probably should write some guidelines for list moderators

<dbooth> +1 to the idea of writing up moderation guidance

Wendy: one suggestion from the meeting was to rotate the responsibility at 3 month intervals
… so it's not too heavy on any one person

<npdoty> +1 for rotation (though I thought 1 month was way too brief a suggestion; maybe 1 year?)

Chris: +1 to writing some guidance

<dbooth> -1 to the idea of rotation

Chris: there are different levels of expectation on what we want from moderation
… 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
… I read through a recent message claiming a CEPC violation and determined that while the instance was not pleasant, it didn't violate CEPC

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to explain why I think moderation should not be rotated -- at least not frequently

Chris: it would be nice to have a "tone crossing guard"; someone who encourages discourse in the right direction

DBooth: -1 to rotating moderators, at least on a rapid basis
… this is incongruous with light-touch moderation

<cwilso> +1 that there will be a fair amount of learning needed in moderation

DBooth: rotation implies moderation requires a lot of work
… and there's a learning curve to light moderation
… moderation should only happen in cases of CEPC violations
… long-winded emails should not normally trigger moderation

Nick: I support moderation but agree it should not be frequent moderation
… moderation is useful so it doesn't become someone "in charge"
… I'm hearing there might be interest in a work item to provide some recommendations
… maybe it's just a paragraph or maybe it's a document

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
… I wouldn't want moderation guidance to be heavy-handed
… "here are some things you might want to be aware of as a moderator"
… things you might want to say when someone is starting to step out of line

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I don't see moderation as a route to chairing, because that would lead to overly active moderation

Wendy: it shouldn't be long

<npdoty> chair can be the default moderator, but there can be other moderators

DBooth: I'd be cautious as viewing moderation as a route to chairing

Wendy: I think of it as an opportunity to increased responsibility
… e.g. some groups have task force chairs as a route to more responsibility

DBooth: we don't want a moderator who is aspiring to be a chair

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to volunteer to draft something

<npdoty> happy to help review

DBooth: I volunteer to start drafting something

Wendy: great; do a markdown document and open a PR
… "Moderation Guidance"

ACTION: David to draft moderation guidance

<wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pulls

Open PRs

ins "and" #227

Chris: #227 seems easy to merge!

Wendy: yep; doesn't seem contentious

<dbooth> +1 to merggoing 227

<npdoty> 243 also seems easy/useful to merge

<wendyreid> w3c/PWETF#243

Wendy: I think I've address most of the comments on #243

<npdoty> +1 to merging 243

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to note outstanding renaming question

DBooth: on the last call we discussed renaming and whether to use the word "Professional"
… that would slightly affect the wording

<npdoty> yeah, once we re-name, we will need to re-name in many places :)

Wendy: I have another PR that shows what it would look like to change "CEPC" to "Code of Conduct"
… is the contributing practice clear?

<cwilso> +1

DBooth: I had some suggestions

Wendy: I think I addressed all but the renaming one

<dbooth> LGTM!

<npdoty> grammatically, I think " We ask that participants do not open" would typically be " We ask that participants not open"

<dbooth> +1 to merging

Wendy: I'll fix "... do not open" and merge

DBooth: a mistake I made was to submit a large set of issues all at once
… should we ask people not to submit all at once?

Wendy: I would not want someone to forget to submit their issue
… I would much rather have all the issues and then decide how to work through them
… we can figure out how to deal with a large bunch of issues

<wendyreid> w3c/PWETF#238

DBooth: OK

<wendyreid> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237/files

Wendy: #232 is about removing patronizing language; there are two approaches

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
… can we get a sense of which general approach the group prefers?

Wendy: David's comments helped me figure out an issue I had that I had not been able to articulate
… previously we had the patronizing language section as part of microaggression
… but patronizing language can apply in other cases, so I decided to move it out from under microaggression
… the second part is to define what it means to be patronizing
… if you make too many assumptions about people that can lead to patronizing behavior
… I also decided to remove some of the examples; it's not always the case that a specific phrase indicates someone is being patronizing
… it's context-dependent
… that is the approach I tried to take

DBooth: fine to move the patronizing section

<npdoty> I tend to like the organization of 237, having different sub-lists for patronizing and microagressions

DBooth: I agree that "well, actually ..." isn't necessarily patronizing but it's a trigger phrase for some
… I was glad to learn that it can be a trigger phrase
… on examples: I like having them, particularly examples I can learn from
… examples have to be clear on why they are included or be explained why they are included
… "well, actually..." needed explanation for me

Wendy: any preferences for which PR to merge?

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask if the gorup thinks we should move the patronizing section

Chris: I'm on the fence

<wendyreid> Ralph: My intuition is that it lives better on its own

<dbooth> ralph: Patronizing Lives better on its own.

<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

Chris: thinking through a test case ...
… there was definitely patronizing language in use
… after discussing it with the person who felt affected, it wasn't a repeated pattern; it was a single instance of a microaggression
… so there would be a light-handed response: "what you just said was condescending"
… all of the things under microaggression are sort-of patronizing behaviour

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest I move that part in pr 238

Chris: but they should not be "gotten over" when they are continued patterns

DBooth: I'm fine either way; moving or not
… the differences I tried to make in my PR #238 was to change how "well, actually ..." was being described and dropped the "grandmother" example
… I specifically tried to highlight "thug" as something that now carries racial undertones to some

Wendy: for #238 I'd keep the trigger phrases
… I'd like to move away from using examples of offensive language
… patronizing language becomes more of a problem when it is repeated

<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to understand why examples of offensive language feels wrong?

DBooth: why don't you want to include examples of offensive language?

Wendy: my personal view: I don't like reinforcing offensive language by using it

Chris: I hear that concern
… one of the challenges is that for some of these terms there is no initial concept to reinforce
… 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
… when you don't have the background of those connotations it's useful to point them out

Wendy: I understand; there's value in learning the background of some of these
… e.g. I'm working on learning to avoid ableist language
… we're learning every day about history of some terms

ACTION: David to move patronizing section in PR 238

Wendy: productive session ;thank you

[adjourned]