13:51:37 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:51:41 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-irc
13:51:45 <tzviya> zakim, start the meeting
13:51:45 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:51:47 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
13:57:58 <dbooth> dbooth has joined #pwe
13:58:33 <dbooth> present+
13:58:42 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
13:58:43 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
14:00:05 <tzviya> present+
14:00:11 <wendyreid> wendyreid has joined #pwe
14:00:26 <wendyreid> present+
14:00:41 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe
14:00:41 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
14:00:42 <nigel> nigel has joined #pwe
14:00:59 <tzviya> Date: 2023-04-25
14:01:55 <Jem> present+
14:03:12 <tzviya> https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/237
14:03:41 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:04:11 <tzviya> scribe+
14:04:39 <tzviya> Wendy: I added a definition of patronizing, since it can have more than 1 meaning in English. I took the Oxford definition.
14:04:51 <tzviya> ...I also clarified examples and fixed a typo
14:05:08 <Ralph> present+
14:05:16 <cwilso> scribe+
14:05:52 <cwilso> Tzviya: I think we've already discussed all of this except conveys vs portrays
14:06:04 <sheila> a+
14:06:07 <Ralph> i|Date:|agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2023Apr/0003.html
14:06:11 <sheila> sq+
14:06:19 <cwilso> ...we do want to get this nailed down prior to the AC meeting, ideally
14:06:21 <cwilso> q+ sheila
14:06:26 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:07:14 <dbooth> q+ to disagree
14:07:16 <cwilso> sheila: on conveys vs betrays: I think conveys shows impact rather than intent.  I would +1 keeping conveys vs betrays
14:07:18 <cwilso> +1
14:07:23 <tzviya> +1 to sheila
14:07:25 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:07:25 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to disagree
14:07:57 <tzviya> q+ to respond
14:07:57 <sheila> q+
14:08:01 <tzviya> ack tz
14:08:01 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to respond
14:08:05 <cwilso> david: I think there's an important element in the definition of patronizing: an element of intent, insult, deceit - this gets lost if this is changed to conveys
14:08:32 <cwilso> tzviya: we've been trying to get across in the document that intent frequently doesn't matter; impact does.
14:08:35 <cwilso> q+
14:08:38 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:09:35 <cwilso> sheila: the definition is one thing; we're trying to capture something else.  There's a reason this is called patronizing language rather than patronizing feelings.
14:09:35 <tzviya> ack cw
14:09:44 <wendyreid> +1 to Sheila
14:10:18 <wendyreid> q+
14:10:24 <tzviya> cwilso: I agree with sheila. This document is about what other people are feeling. We don't want to leave room for someoen to say, "But, I didn't mean it." It is my responsibility.
14:10:26 <cwilso> +1 to sheilka
14:10:27 <dbooth> q+
14:10:28 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:10:29 <cwilso> +1 to sheila
14:10:39 <cwilso> chris: +1; it's about impact not intent
14:10:45 <cwilso> wendy: context really matters.
14:13:02 <Ralph> wendyreid++
14:13:04 <dbooth> q+
14:13:08 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:13:08 <cwilso> +1
14:13:34 <tzviya> wendyreid: above all this document is to provide guidance not offer guidance for punishment
14:14:04 <sheila> q+
14:14:09 <cwilso> david: I understand impact vs intent.  But the concept of being patronizing is that if the recipient feels the other person was being sincere, it's not patronizing.
14:14:11 <tzviya> ack she
14:14:17 <dbooth> dbooth: "I understand the idea of impact vs intent, but the concept of being patronizing is that the recipient feels that the patronizer was being insulting, as opposed to being genuinely kind and helpful.  That is an important distinction.  If someone is being genuinely kind or helpful."
14:14:39 <cwilso> sheila: but "betrays" refers to the intent of the person who said it, not the person who heard it.
14:14:57 <tzviya> q+ to straw poll
14:15:42 <cwilso> ...sometimes the context of how someone is trying to be helpful can still be patronizing
14:16:11 <cwilso> +1
14:16:19 <dbooth> If recipient feels that the speaker is being genuinely kind or helpful, then the recipient does not feel patronized.
14:16:51 <cwilso> q+
14:17:17 <cwilso> tzviya: <examples>
14:17:43 <cwilso> ack tz
14:17:43 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to straw poll
14:17:50 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:17:57 <tzviya> q+ to straw poll
14:18:16 <Ralph> scribe+
14:18:30 <Ralph> cwilso: it also matters how others perceive what was said
14:18:34 <wendyreid> cwilso: It's not just about whether the recipient feels patronized either, relationship matters, but also others can discern whether something is patronizing
14:18:39 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:18:39 <Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to comment on examples
14:18:42 <wendyreid> ... we're rabbit-holing
14:18:44 <wendyreid> scribe+
14:18:47 <sheila> +1 to a straw poll, once people have had a chance to share
14:19:03 <wendyreid> Ralph: I found Tzviya's examples informative, I've never had it happen to me, but seen it happen to others
14:19:24 <wendyreid> ... it helps others in the room to see that that behaviour is inappropriate
14:19:33 <Ralph> scribe-
14:19:43 <dbooth> q+ To say I won't object to using "convey".  I idont' think it's very important.
14:19:55 <tzviya> https://pr-preview.s3.amazonaws.com/w3c/PWETF/237/9cade31...8c0d884.html
14:20:25 <tzviya> ack me
14:20:25 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to straw poll
14:20:33 <cwilso> tzviya: POLL:  ^^
14:20:34 <cwilso> +1
14:21:02 <tzviya> ack next
14:21:03 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I won't object to using "convey".  I idont' think it's very important.
14:21:18 <tzviya> +1
14:21:56 <cwilso> dbooth: I'm concerned that I find most of these examples to be examples of something else, like prejudice or rudeness.
14:22:05 <tzviya> q+ wendyreid
14:22:07 <sheila> patronizing language often stems from implicit bias or prejudice
14:22:12 <cwilso> ^^
14:22:16 <cwilso> +1 sheila
14:22:33 <sheila> q+
14:22:44 <cwilso> ack wendy
14:23:55 <cwilso> wendy: most patronizing language does come from implicit bias.  It can come from people who have positive intent, or are just being nice.
14:24:13 <Jem> +q to add comment on "readily found in any dictionary" and "doc from growing larger"
14:24:30 <cwilso> ...we already say "don't be racist" and "don't be sexist".  This is a pattern that isn't explicit.
14:24:31 <dbooth> dbooth: Suggest simplifying the patronizing section to:  "Patronizing language or behavior, such as using language that insultingly implies the audience is uninformed on a topic, e.g., making statements like "I can't believe you don't know about [topic]"."
14:25:09 <tzviya> q+ to ask dbooth a question
14:25:15 <sheila> +1 to Wendy re: the idea that that this section is an umbrella for a lot of other objectionable problem that manifest as patronizing language
14:25:32 <tzviya> +1 to wendyreid
14:25:35 <cwilso> ... the reality is that this isn't here to punish people, it's to help guide people.
14:25:38 <cwilso> +1 wendy
14:26:48 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:27:59 <tzviya> ack Jem
14:27:59 <Zakim> Jem, you wanted to add comment on "readily found in any dictionary" and "doc from growing larger"
14:28:06 <Ralph> s/it helps others in the room/calling it out helps others in the room
14:28:17 <cwilso> sheila: on "I don't think you understood", there are a lot of other ways to ensure comprehension that are not questioning ability to comprehend.
14:28:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
14:29:00 <cwilso> jem: we should not rely on dictionary definition alone; one may give up instead of looking up in the dictionary.
14:29:18 <tzviya> ack me
14:29:18 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask dbooth a question
14:29:24 <cwilso> ...it is also very useful to be able to point to the exact type of behavior detailed in the document.
14:30:19 <tzviya> Should we adopt PR #237
14:30:20 <tzviya> +1
14:30:21 <Ralph> +1 to merge #237
14:30:23 <dbooth> -1
14:30:25 <sheila> +1
14:30:26 <wendyreid> +1
14:30:28 <cwilso> +1
14:30:28 <Jem> +1
14:31:17 <sheila> I think we spent an entire meeting discussing that exact issue
14:31:23 <cwilso> we did
14:32:20 <sheila> I don't think there's going to be consensus
14:32:29 <Jem> May we clarify "the assumption" "with prejudices", not just assumption?
14:32:39 <Ralph> i|Date:|-> https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-pwe-minutes.html previous 11 April
14:32:55 <cwilso> q+ to ask the chairs to make a decision at this point.
14:33:07 <Ralph> -> https://www.w3.org/2023/04/11-pwe-minutes.html#t03 11 April discussion of #237 and #238
14:33:56 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:34:38 <JenStrickland> q+
14:34:43 <sheila> q+ to ask a process question about how we proceed if there's a single dissenting voice?
14:34:44 <cwilso> q-
14:35:17 <cwilso> qq+
14:35:17 <Jem> I suggested the "qualtification"
14:35:18 <JenStrickland> present+
14:36:19 <tzviya> ack cw
14:36:19 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to react to tzviya
14:36:28 <Ralph> scribe+
14:36:43 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:36:44 <Ralph> cwilso: this should cause people to think
14:36:55 <Ralph> ... @@more
14:37:50 <tzviya> q+ to make a decision
14:37:56 <dbooth> dbooth: I could live with keeping the example, but not with their current wording.  I think the wording problems that I see could be relatively easily corrected, and I'd be happy to make suggestions to do so.
14:39:44 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:39:44 <Zakim> sheila, you wanted to ask a process question about how we proceed if there's a single dissenting voice?
14:39:50 <dbooth> Thanks Jenn, for your comments!
14:39:52 <cwilso> Jen: perhaps we should table this for a while
14:40:10 <cwilso> sheila: process-wise, I don't know what happens in this kind of case
14:40:20 <cwilso> q+ to answer process question
14:40:34 <tzviya> ack cw
14:40:34 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to answer process question
14:41:07 <Ralph> sheila++
14:41:39 <JenStrickland> present+
14:41:41 <dbooth> q+ To say i think there's a simple path forward: I'll propose simple changes that would adequately address my concerns, while (I hope) retaining the important content that others believe are important.
14:41:50 <tzviya> ack me
14:41:50 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to make a decision
14:42:15 <dbooth> You did not see my next proposal yet.
14:42:28 <cwilso> tzviya: we are going to move on with this merge.
14:42:47 <cwilso> ...next issue 240: https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/240
14:43:14 <wendyreid> q+
14:43:35 <Jem> I think David can open new issue although we close the issue 237.
14:43:52 <tzviya> ack db
14:43:52 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say i think there's a simple path forward: I'll propose simple changes that would adequately address my concerns, while (I hope) retaining the important
14:43:55 <Zakim> ... content that others believe are important.
14:44:11 <cwilso> ... this issue is summarizing the code.  there is some question about whether this is helpful or not.
14:44:21 <tzviya> ack we
14:44:22 <sheila> +1 Jemma, like the idea of merging and then David can open a new issue
14:44:39 <tzviya> q+ jemma
14:45:07 <cwilso> wendy: I see both sides of this, but I agree with Tzviya that we really do want people to read the whole thing.
14:45:33 <cwilso> ... I think maybe we need some opening text that captures the intent of the Code
14:45:37 <tzviya> q+ to improve the abstract
14:46:13 <cwilso> ...I don't want a really short version of what we've done, though
14:46:13 <tzviya> ack Jem
14:46:14 <cwilso> +1
14:46:51 <dbooth> jem and Sheila, process-wise, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to open a new issue on a closed issue.  I think the process is for me to file a formal objection.
14:47:01 <cwilso> q+ re:summary
14:47:06 <cwilso> ack re:
14:47:16 <cwilso> q+ to make comment re:summary
14:47:41 <tzviya> ack me
14:47:41 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to improve the abstract
14:47:58 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:47:58 <cwilso> tzviya: we have an abstract, we could consider improving the abstract.
14:48:04 <cwilso> ...rather than adding a summary
14:48:18 <dbooth> Putting it in the abstract seems like an adequate solution to me also.
14:48:40 <cwilso> ralph: I was going to make a similar comment: we shouldn't make an abbreviated version of the code.
14:48:42 <sheila> david, right, that makes sense - I was just suggesting as a potential alternative if you wanted to submit a NEW set of edits that weren't the same as the previous. but you're probably right that a formal objection would be best
14:49:05 <cwilso> ...258 is about abstract
14:49:07 <tzviya> ack cw
14:49:07 <Zakim> cwilso, you wanted to make comment re:summary
14:49:39 <Ralph> Ralph: see #258; it accomplishes helping people know why they should read this
14:49:41 <Ralph> scribe:
14:50:21 <Ralph> cwilso: the "TL;DR;" practice self-destructed when people realized that 50% of those would not read the full version
14:50:36 <Ralph> ... if we say "here's the short version of the rules" then we're re-writing the rules
14:50:36 <tzviya> q?
14:50:50 <dbooth> People routinely read only the abstract of a paper and skip the body.
14:50:59 <dbooth> q+
14:50:59 <cwilso> tzviya: should we replace this with 258
14:51:05 <tzviya> ack dbooth
14:51:21 <cwilso> david: is the idea to put this in the abstract?
14:51:55 <cwilso> tzviya: no: the abstract is something different, it is not intended to be a summary, but a declaration of value.
14:52:04 <tzviya> Proposal: Close #240, focus on #258 (revising abstract)
14:52:05 <cwilso> david: sounds fine, let's take that approach.
14:52:05 <tzviya> +1
14:52:05 <Ralph> +1 to close #240 without merging
14:52:07 <cwilso> +1
14:52:07 <wendyreid> +1
14:52:10 <Jem> +1
14:52:12 <sheila> +1
14:52:14 <JenStrickland> +1
14:52:19 <dbooth> 0
14:52:32 <tzviya> Resolved: Close #240, focus on #258 (revising abstract)
14:53:11 <cwilso>  https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/pull/241
14:54:32 <cwilso> tzviya: proposed changes to microaggressions
14:55:37 <tzviya> ack Ralph
14:55:39 <cwilso> ...microagression can be a one-time thing, not just a repeated pattern, so I would disagree with that change
14:55:47 <sheila> q+
14:55:54 <dbooth> q+ to say a pattern is what matters.
14:56:26 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:56:41 <cwilso> ralph: I'm less uncomfortable with this.
14:57:24 <wendyreid> q+ Jem
14:57:25 <cwilso> sheila: I agree with Tzviya that it doesn't need to be a pattern to count.  Committing a single microagression warrants a discussion, and we should enable the document to capture that
14:57:34 <Jem> +q
14:57:49 <tzviya> ack db
14:57:49 <Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say a pattern is what matters.
14:57:49 <JenStrickland> +1 to Sheila's statement.
14:57:53 <cwilso> david: q+ to suggest text
14:58:10 <sheila> q+
14:58:12 <cwilso> david: pattern is really fundamental to the concept of microagressions.
14:58:37 <tzviya> ack jem
14:58:40 <JenStrickland> Definition: noun: micro-aggression a statement, action, or incident regarded as an instance of indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group such as a racial or ethnic minority. "students posed with dry-erase boards documenting their experiences with microaggressions on campus" indirect, subtle, or unintentional discrimination against members of a marginalized group. "they are not subject to [CUT]
14:58:44 <JenStrickland> q+
14:58:53 <cwilso> ...it's about cumulative effect.
14:59:37 <cwilso> q+
14:59:46 <tzviya> ack sheila
15:01:14 <tzviya> +1
15:01:22 <wendyreid> +1
15:01:48 <Jem> I hear that "pattern" can be in different layers. thanks, Sheila
15:01:50 <tzviya> https://www.dismantlingracism.org/uploads/4/3/5/7/43579015/okun_-_white_sup_culture.pdf
15:01:52 <dbooth> I agree that a pattern does not need to be restricted to one person.  It certaainly can be a pattern across multiple individuals and time.
15:01:59 <cwilso> sheila: I've been to a lot of trainings that describe microaggressions, it's not been described as patterns.
15:02:13 <cwilso> I wanted to point to Microaggression is a term used for commonplace daily verbal, behavioral or environmental slights, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative attitudes toward stigmatized or culturally marginalized groups.[1]
15:02:18 <cwilso> (Wikipedia defn)
15:02:37 <dbooth> thank you!
15:02:38 <cwilso> i.e., the definition we are referencing is about individual slights, not patterns.
15:02:47 <tzviya> rrsagent, make minutes
15:02:48 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html tzviya
15:03:11 <Ralph> zakim, bye
15:03:11 <Zakim> leaving.  As of this point the attendees have been dbooth, tzviya, wendyreid, Jem, Ralph, JenStrickland
15:03:11 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:09:07 <sheila> present+
20:23:53 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
20:23:53 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-irc
20:23:57 <dbooth> rrsagent, make logs public
20:24:07 <dbooth> The meeting adjourned 5 hours ago.  But in reviewing the minutes, I see that they do not adequately capture what happened when PR 237 was close.  I am appending further explanation here.
20:24:12 <dbooth> Others should please correct me if you think I get anything wrong.  What happened:
20:24:18 <dbooth> 1. A straw poll was taken on the proposal to merge PR 237.  Six members voted to merge, and one (DBooth) voted against merging.
20:24:24 <dbooth> 2. Someone asked what to do if consensus is not reached.  Chris said that there is a provision in the W3C process for the chair to make a decision without consensus.
20:24:30 <dbooth> 3. DBooth offered to try to resolve the lack of consensus by proposing "simple changes that would adequately address my concerns, while (I hope) retaining the important content that others believe are important".
20:24:37 <dbooth> 4. The chair made a decision to merge PR 237 in spite of the lack of consensus, without a taking a binding group vote, and without considering DBooth's offer to further try to reach consensus.
20:24:43 <dbooth> 5. Two others suggested in IRC that DBooth should submit new issues against the newly merged text.
20:24:52 <dbooth> 6. DBooth pointed out in IRC that "process-wise, I don't think it would be appropriate for me to open a new issue on a closed issue.  I think the process is for me to file a formal objection".
20:24:59 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:25:00 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
20:25:37 <dbooth> s/was close/was closed/
20:25:39 <dbooth> rrsagent, draft minutes
20:25:40 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/04/25-pwe-minutes.html dbooth
20:30:04 <amy> amy has joined #pwe