Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2023-08-15
<csarven> wendyreid tzviya , in case you're not aware, the calendar event https://
<wendyreid> Thanks for this! I think it was just set that way due to the type of page it's hosted on, but thank you for calling it out.
<Ralph> regrets for the first half (likely) of today's PWE CG meeting
Meeting Facilitation Training
<wendyreid> https://
wendyreid: 2 weeks ago the meeting facilitation announcement finally went out
… thanks to Comm team
… announced on LinkedIn, Twitter, mastodon, chairs list, AC Forum
… I'll send another reminder
… this is the first part, the second part -- there will be 3 sessions in September, hopefully one during TPAC
… then there will be 2 other sessions later in September
… at various times of day
… and we can do more if requested
… we got lovely feedback from one person who watched it
<dbooth> Glad to see this was recorded, so that I (and others) can watch it later!
wendyreid: nice quick watch, half hour
fantasai: Was wondering if the announcement mentioned the structure
… might encourage more people
tzviya: Yes it says that
<dbooth> Good idea!
wendyreid: tried to make that really clear, there's two levels of commitment, can just watch video, love it if you show up to session
… but fairly short in total
Feedback from the AB on CoC
tzviya: AB had an F2F where Wendy and I presented the draft Coc
… initially just a little feedback, but then a bunch of issues logged as follow up
… Wendy and I did some research, so we'll go through issue by issue
… note that we have ??? already
PRs on CoC 2023
https://
tzviya: some were easy fixes
<tzviya> w3c/
319
github: w3c/
tzviya: chaals opened this issue, just found this to be a redundant phrase
… I don't think it's a big deal to remove
tzviya: btw, chaals raised many of these issues as part of doing a Spanish translation
<dbooth> +1
<tzviya> 0
POLL: Accept PR 319
<cwilso> 0
+1
<JenStrickland_> 0
0
https://
https://
RESOLUTION: Accept PR 319
wendyreid: 2 issues raised that were grammatical fixes
… we'd lost a word in the middle of editorial work
… and other fix
… significant difference was the update text and its placement
… I moved out the major part of the update text, the part that descries our schedule
… moved it intou our contribution document, not in the CoC itself
… so that we can more easily change it
… and moved other bits into "status of the document" section
florian: expressing support
… there are multiple unrelated changes in this, but I support all of them
… wrt moving things out of update section, i would have moved more out but this seems reasonable too
dbooth: lgtm too
… didn't understand plural vs singular
wendyreid: that part didn't change
[discussion of mixed up fixes]
[and merge conflicts]
fantasai: would be nice if commit messages were not just "editorial fix"
<dbooth> dbooth: Suggest merging this PR, and if the singular/plural issue is not fixed in another PR, then we can fix it later.
fantasai: lgtm, other than commit messages :)
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 328
wendyreid: suggested by mnot, made wording a lot easier to read
… and also better structure
https://
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I think this is a big improvement. The last bullet is still problematic, but too complex to fix right now. We should come back to it on another occasion.
dbooth: I like this a lot, it's a big improvement
… that last bullet about reverse-isms is still problematic
… but I don't think we have time to address now, so let's accept this PR and come back to that
florian: That last sentence is especially delicate and hard to phrase
… I think the new phrasing introduces any new problem that wasn't there earlier
… so agree we should merge this
<fantasai> +1 to dbooth and florian
RESOLUTION: merge 329
wendyreid: This one there was some discussion in the issue itself
… issues raised by chaals around this section on physical contact
tzviya: chaals made a good point that we had previously described uncomfortableness around physical contact around culture, but might not be just cultural could be personal dislike
… restructured a few other parts of the sentence
JenStrickland_: So what do we say happens in these cases?
tzviya: this is an awareness thing, not a slap on the wrist
dbooth: I think it's a good shift, the proposed change
<florian> s/I think the new phrasing introduces/I don't think the new phrasing introduces
dbooth: I like that it is embracing diversity, saying that lots of people differ, and it's not just culture
<cwilso> +1
tzviya: merge this?
wendyreid: one comment about preceived, should we proceed with that?
dbooth: I find it redundant
tzviya: I think it's OK
JenStrickland_: Agreed. Sometimes can be perceived as more than just a personal space issue, it's both
<dbooth> Fine with me either way.
tzviya: ok, I think we're going to merge it
wendyreid: I need to fix a tiny grammar thing, but might just do that
PR 338
wendyreid: raised issue of race in list of dimensions
… we reached out to some people to get feedback from people who have lived experience of being person of color in Europe
… There was feeling that we couldn't remove the word race, but inclusion of "racial identity" would be ok to add
<dbooth> Addition of "racial identity" seems to me like a good idea.
wendyreid: but to get rid of it entirely would be inappropriate
<dbooth> + 1 to merge
<dbooth> jennifer: This wasn't fun at all.
cwilso: Do you know if this addresses chaals's issue? or Florian's?
tzviya: chaals wrote "let me think about it"
… we can ask Florian right now
<cwilso> s/fantasai: This wasn't fun at all./JenStrickland: This wasn't fun at all.
<dbooth> fantasai: This doesn't seem to address the issue raised in the AB.
fantasai: It doesn't seem to me that this addresses the issue raised during the AB that the definition assumes that race is a valid way to organize people, look at their participation and review if we're sufficiently diverse.
… all of which supposes that race is an appropriate and valid way of categorizing people
<dbooth> ... Are we sufficiently diverse racially? Encourage people to participate? Which assumes that race is a valid way to categorize people.
fantasai: it doesn't address that aspect of the issue
JenStrickland_: great point, but maybe add something that defines race as a social construct that's a lot of [bs]
… but that was a good point
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to talk about social constructs
tzviya: it's an important point. Wendy and I reached out to people of color in Europe who acknowledge that "race" is a challenging term in Europe
… but it can't be ignored
… just like how we talk about gender as a social construct
… we do have a problem in W3C that we don't have enough racial diversity
… we can't ignore that it exists
… do we need to add asterisks, saying "race is a construct", "gender is a construct"?
… people with lived experience asked us to keep it
florian: I agree with what fantasai said.
… that said I don't think the PR is a problem, should be merged
… whether it solves the issue is a separate problem, and in that respect I think it falls a bit short
florian: I wouldn't go so far as to say race is an invalid construct, but that's not quite right
… there are constructs where it's valid and others where it's not
… it's very difficult in an international context
<dbooth> +1 to Florian's comments
florian: We can't erase discussion of race, and we have many places in the document where it is apropriately referenced
… but for the reasons mentioned, I think it's problematic here
… I wonder if "racial identity + ascribed race" would solve the problem
… so your identity and also how you are assigend
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask: Is this proposed PR an improvement, even if it doesn't fully address the issue? I think it is. +1 to merge.
florian: We need to find the thin line between the two, where we neither erase the concept for those to whom it matters, neither force it upon others
dbooth: I agree with those concerns
… and I agree that the PR is an improvement from what's in the document
… so go ahead and merge
… but we should think about and maybe come up with better wording in the future
wendyreid: One of the challenges we're having here applies to gender, nationality, etc.
… all of these things are constructs created by the social conventions of our society
… different societies have different conventions
… we have to thread the needle between what's appropriate in each context and what is protective
… Question of are we going to start making lists, that's a slippery slope argument
… could say the same for gender etc.
… There might be a context where you need to ensure the people ensure a diversity of racial identity
… but that's contextual, not every situation
… but agree we should merge now and continue to have this conversation
… many things to improve about the document, but let's put a line down and move forward
JenStrickland_: I think this conversation is very interesting, and I think that it's complicated because we have uncertain amount of dimension representation in this group
… when we're using these terms, they are socially accepted terms that are currently being used
… we could have a sentence that says, we acknolwedge that these terms are what society uses while they may also be somewhat problematic, we are not the ones who police/oversee the use of these terms
… that's a larger topic than us
… I love the addition of racial identity
… [explains personal experience]
… but maybe we need a disclaimer
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention lists
tzviya: One of the people we spoke to, btw, said they dislike lists like this in general
… because no matter what, you're going to offend someone by inclusion or exclusion
… I think it's fine to merge, but in the future we might consider leaving off the lists
… these are examples, not definitions anyway
RESOLUTION: Merge PR 338
florian: I support the merging and thinking about the question further
… I do want to mention as fantasai mentioned during the AB meeting, that the addition of "race" is a change from the base revision
… so this is something we need to consider for this revision,
… let me explain
… current published CEPC has a much shorter list in this spot, and this list doens't include "race"
… the concerns raised by adding 'race' are new compared to existing def
… so while this PR is an improvement over the editor's draft
… but if it doesn't resolve chaals and my issue, it doesn't resolve that issue (even if it does get closer)
tzviya: what are you suggesting?
florian: I think we should merge, it's an incremental improvement
… but I don't think it resolves the whole issue
tzviya: I don't think we can do anything other than remove the list. We can't have such a long list and not include race or racial identity
florian: I'll try to think
<JenStrickland_> Diversity for the purposes of diversity and inclusion, is any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups and people from one another. With a focus on age, gender, ethnicity, religion, disability, sexual orientation, education, and national origin. would become Diversity for the purposes of diversity and inclusion, is any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups and people from one another.
florian: I can think of some rephrasings that might work
… I think fantasai explained better why this bothers me
github: w3c/
<tzviya> Diversity for the purposes of diversity and inclusion, is any dimension that can be used to differentiate groups and people from one another.
tzviya: What if we remove the whole list?
JenStrickland_: we have lists elsewhere in the document, but this is one opportunity to ...
wendyreid: I don't want to do this, mostly because we use lists other places in the document
… I'd rather unify the lists and make them consistent
… This is the first instance where we have a list and diversity
… I want to make sure we're consistent when we describe these things
… I'm also worried about not being explicit and people taking advantage of that
… I understand where we're coming from but...
… these are socialogical shorthands for behavior.
… race is an uncomfortable construct, developed to organize people in the worst way possible
… but to pretend that people don't treat each other differently is also problematic
<cwilso> +1 wendy
fantasai: I don't think anyone is arguing that
dbooth: Firstly, I think Florian's comments were useful and insightful
… from a practical perspective, it sounds like we mostly agree that this PR is an improvement over current state of ED
… and that further improvement seems necessary
… so I suggest we merge this PR and continue looking for improvements
JenStrickland_: I think I agree with dbooth. For practical purposes let's merge it
… but I also agree with removing it is a good first step
… I don't think removing is pretending it doesn't happen
… I still think that sentence acknowledges that we do categorize people under a variety of dimensions
… I just don't think we need to list them at this point
… It's too complicated.
… I still battle with idea that we're standards organization, but do we also want to decide the ways people are categorized and diminished?
… having these lists is a pandora's box
… everyone knows that we're a worldwide organization
… it varies so much depending on location
… we don't want to be a a North American - centric
tzviya: I'm on the queue to remind people that this is part of a glossary, not part of the main text
… [quotes text]
… This is a terrible definition
… I don't remember how we go this definition, but late to change it now if we want to get things done today
… What we want to talk about is bringing together people from different dimensions
… Main reason for glossary is for people who don't speak English as a first language
… if you are English you won't look at glossary
<dbooth> I understand the concern about examples being misconstrued as complete definitions, but I think examples are very helpful for people to understand what we are trying to say.
florian: I'm fine with merging as-is. As for removing the list, it does resolve that issue, but may introduce others
… if we keep the list, and we have racial identity, and we have "race and", I didn't understand why it wouldn't work
… to have "perceived race and racial identity"
… why does such an adjective not work here.
<JenStrickland_> +1 to ascribed
wendyreid: I just think it overcomplicates it
florian: It's complicated in the first place.
… complication is unavoidable. If it's bad that's another thing
<Zakim> fantasai, you wanted to dispute use of glossary
<dbooth> "ascribed" is overly erudite. "perceived" is okay with me.
<tzviya> Proposal: Change definition to "including or involving people from a range of different social and ethnic backgrounds"
<dbooth> fantasai: Different people use different definitions. Def in the glossary is for use in this document.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to suggest a complete change
fantasai: Terms referenced in the main text, the glossary is how it will be interpreted not just for non-English speakers
wendyreid: I don't know if that's a workable defintion, tzviya
wendyreid: We don't have time today. We can look one up
… worried about timing
… but we can resolve to do for next version of CEPC
JenStrickland_: Still have problem with the list usage here
… I think if we make one list somewhere of a whole lot of possible dimensions... but we focus on each of these
… diversity is about inclusion of a broadest range of perspectives and lived experiences
… disability is a social background, but it's perspective
… we want [lists axes]
… because it sucks to have someon tell you what you are
anyway time
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say if we are going to consider other defiintions, we need the proposed in writing.
<dbooth> fantasai: Suggest that jenn propose a new def of diversity
fantasai: rpopose to merge the PR, leave open issue
dbooth: Proposals should be in writing
JenStrickland_: I would suggest a PR
… it's written down and anyone can look at it before and during meeting
tzviya: or an issue
wendyreid: let's start an issue for now
florian: Be mindful of where the definition is invoked from. Currently diversity is in a sentence that says diversity is something we promote.
… which is a good thing, but impacts the definition
wendyreid: Let's open an issue for this
… we'll have discussion in the issue
… PR has been merged
… can we draw the line as this is CEPC 2023?
fantasai: no, I don't think we can
JenStrickland_: does this mean we miss TPAC?
wendyreid: won't be able to complete AC review by then
wendyreid: Over time, meeting closed.
end
<dbooth> ADJOURNED