Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2023-09-26
definition of Diversity
<tzviya> w3c/
Tzviya: I recognize there's been a lot of discussion about the diversity definition with a voice of dissent; discussion regarding adding a modifier to race
… Wendy and Tzviya spent a lot of time discussing with multiple people in Europe regarding this topic
… They felt leaving a modifier out was fine and that adding it could call attention in an upsetting way if it was added
so the proposal is to leave race and racial identity
the person who dissented is not here, so will need to check with them; the only location found for 'ascribed race' was found in scientific journals like Nature
<Jem> I also agreed with "ascribed race"
so, straw poll, are we comfortable with race without modifiers?
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I'm fine with leaving off "ascribed race", but since the requester brought it up, I think it would be good to ask him if he is ok with leaving it off.
<Jem> agree with checking with the requester
Rachel: I appreciate learning about the word 'ascribed'
… I did some thinking about it, and am fine leaving it out, and worry that if we start adding ascribed, then we might need to start adding 'perceived' and others
… so the identified race and the perceived race and ascribed race… I appreciate why people want to have ascribed, but I'm fine leaving it out.
Tzviya: While I understand where you're coming from, it's a fraught topic, and I don't want to call more attention to it than necessary.
<tzviya> proposal: Include "race" and "racial identity" not "ascribed race"
<tzviya> +1
<cwilso> +1
<Rachel> +1
<sheila> +1
+1
<Jem> 0
<dbooth> 0
Tzviya: we do need to move forward on this, as it has held up publishing and everything else for two months.
RESOLUTION: Include "race" and "racial identity" not "ascribed race"
tzviya: the last thing on this pull request is to have a link for indigenity definition.
… [addressing dbooth question re the requester] Wendy has discussed with the dissenter for the past month. We cannot have one person hold up publishing.
… I believe this is a final resolution. The dissenter is on the AB so they can hold us up, if they have a strong opinion.
cwilso: I do think it is a final resolution, and if the AB member feels strongly they can bring it up later.
… on the link to the indigenity it will be relevant to remove the extraneous information from the link -- I put it in the pull request.
<Jem> great question, David!
dbooth: I understand now that it is a final resolution, I just wanted that to be clear.
… regarding link, I don't think we should have a link to a paywall.
cwilso: That's why Wendy used a google search.
tzviya: now with that completed we can move on to a non CEPC topic. We've been working on the ombuds program.
… part of this is recognizing the job, part of it is mediators, and the job description…
ombuds job description
tzviya: Wendy and I started working on a revision so that it is clearer, and also working on a document called dispute resolution
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to ask a clarifying question
Sheila: question regarding where this is now. Last I knew I was asked to send Ralph a definition so he could include it in a pitch to the board regarding funding, around July 20.
tzviya: once we clarified with Ralph, he concluded it was within the budget within 2023.
… at this point all we're asking for in 2023 is nominating/hiring the ombuds and training. They wouldn't get to the work within 2023.
… the 2024 budget would include paying the ombuds, mediators, and investigators. There are still a lot of unclear things that we need to address.
The point of this document is is to clarify the role of ombuds, distinct from mediator. They don't have a lot of authority. It depends on how much we want to invest in them, they'll give advice, conservative sounding board.
… from research we learned that people generally want a sounding board. They aren't the ones to get involved in conflict resolution, they don't get the 2 parties in a room. The mediator does that. Right, Sheila?
Sheila: I'd agree with that. they're also the ones who can outline the pros and cons of each, clarify the process.
dbooth: thank you for that description. it's kind of the opposite of what I assumed from the titles. mediation I would assume would be for conflict resolution -- like a dispute between two equal parties. whereas I assumed the ombuds would have some level of authority to receive complaints of CoC violations.
<sheila> they can receive CoC violations
dbooth: I think it's important to have the definitions. I'm surprised that the actuality is so different from what I understood.
Rachel: my question is regarding 'advice' - there are consequences of advice, and that's likely dependent on the training. So in the job description, there will be an "e t" (couldn't hear)…
… so I'm not sure if they'll be trained and know about their job description. someone in the position may also have their own personal bias…
… so that could be a problem here. I don't have a solution, but I think this could be important.
… I also have a concern with dispute resolution, that it should be recorded.
… it's a slippery slope. someone can advise, brush it off… so I'd advise that in the dispute resolution, it should be properly recorded so we know what happened.
sheila: I realize folks here weren't here when we had the initial conversations, so it may be helpful to understand the context.
… so the idea here is there is research indicating people are more likely to report if there are options available to them. some more formal, some informal.
… ombuds are meant to be informal, a neutral 3rd party that can advise on the process - not indicating whether or not this is a real problem.
… we envisioned that notes would be taken, yet in a de-personalized way.
… a high-level notes process.
… maybe names not included, that someone came in with a concern.
tzviya: one thing that may not be aware, the current ombuds have no training. better not to have people in mgmt as ombuds.
sheila: the way we tried to write the qualifications is around familiarity is around … we requested budget for pretty extensive training for ombuds, due to the foreseen risk.
… ideally looking for people with experience with the topics, cross-cultural communication, etc.
… that context is likely important.
Rachel: I think the note taking is quite critical. I think the training, and not having mgmt be the person… I can share from personal interaction…
… people may see things as trivial, until they hear the details. I think the note taking needs to be taken seriously.
<tzviya> ack +
Rachel: there are a few parties involved. The person making the complaint…
… I am personally aware of some cases where members are insulted by the W3C staff. One of my job functions is evangelist. I don't bring people into roles where they are insulted.
… this role really needs to be trained, willing and able to do it.
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to repeat offender vs privacy
tzviya: thanks Rachel, we appreciate that. if you want to have a private conversation about your experiences… we had unminuted conversations about it years ago. unfortunately people have had some pretty miserable experiences…
… with record keeping there's a fine line between privacy and documentation. we need to be careful about repeat offenders. there needs to be a way for offenders to come together and share what they've heard… identify patterns, even if it's not the same person.
… yes, there has to be a way that maintains confidentiality.
… with your experience, it will be helpful if you help with the wording of the job description.
… we've been careful, as we don't want to share the wording in advance -- for the people being interviewed (did I get this right?).
… David, I'm curious about your point of the ombuds and mediator roles being flipped.
dbooth: I would naturally see the ombuds role as having some authority because if that's the person that people are pointed to if there is a violation.
… like if I was in the position of being harassed, I would want to go to someone with authority. That person might be a sounding board, good listening ear, and … quite different as a dispute between two equal parties.
… a CoC violation does not have to involve a dispute at all. It could just be a behavior that is a violation.
<sheila> I think the dispute piece was just an example
dbooth: I also want to comment that I really liked what Sheila described as the role of an ombud. Does that help answer your question?
tzviya: one thing to keep in mind is that the term dispute resolution isn't necessarily for 'dispute' - it's about conflict de-escalation. it's about having multiple avenues. your first stop does not have to be the ombud, they can go to the mediator.
<dbooth> jen: Ombud knows where the docs are, what your rights are, explains the processes. Critical to have peoplee who can explain this.
<dbooth> ... I was directed to go to leadership when I had a problem and it was bad. Definitely good to have a neutral omud place.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to suggest "complaint resolution" instead of "conflict resolution"
<dbooth> ... I can choose to go to mediator instead is good, but clarifying ombud role is
dbooth: I think a better term instead of 'conflict resolution' might be 'complaint resolution.'
tzviya: we're not working on that document right now. but that puts the onus on the person with the concern. this issue isn't with the complain, it's with what happened.
… we're looking at the document with the ombuds job description. I'm not sure everyone has had a chance to review. The changes are significant. I might merge it since the changes are significant.
… it's markdown so you can't view the edited one.
dbooth: isn't this in the dispute resolution document? am I looking at the wrong thing.
tzviya: it is in the dispute resolution document.
… main changes are in the 'get advice from an ombudsperson'
dbo
dbooth: my comment is on the overall structure of this document and another one that gives the procedure for dealing with a complaint but doesn't really describe it.
tzviya: 'can advise you' vs 'is a sounding board'?
dbooth: I think the overall structure, how it fits with the overall procedure… I put it in a new issue. maybe it's better to discuss in a separate issue.
tzviya: what's the issue number? ah, the procedures document hasn't been updated in years and will be updated once we have a clearer vision after updating the job descriptions, etc. We can't update the procedures until we know what we're dealing with.
dbooth: part of what I'm suggesting is that we move what's in the dispute resolution into the process document.
tzviya: I think that may make sense, but we need to work on the parts first.
dbooth: where is the role of the ombud to be described?
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: there's another doc - draft ombud job description. it can be edited, talks about the role and qualifications.
… there's also another doc on the interview process, which isn't shared widely yet, as we don't yet know who will be interviewed. will need to take a look to see if it needs updating.
<dbooth> tzviya: We have ombuds, mediators and investigators.
tzviya: to be clear, we have ombuds (paid to volunteer, not members of mgmt, will be interviewed, must be hired, no limits but expect rotations), mediators (external), investigators (involved in serious cases)…
Rachel: I think it will be extremely helpful if you add the documents to the agenda, like you have, so we can review ahead.
… there are some links that were old that I raised to Coralie and she removed.
tzviya: there are some very old things we need to remove. our highest priority is to get the ombuds program initiated, it's been 2.5 years.
… if someone wants to volunteer with Coralie to update that stuff, that would be great.
Rachel: I'm not sure if the impact of how important all this is, the organization of the documents. it's going to be important for the organization.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to ask is there a document that mentions all three roles -- ombuds, mediators and investigators -- and helps distinguish them?
tzviya: Ralph is definitely involved.
dbooth: is there a document that mentions all three of those roles to help distinguish them?
tzviya: the dispute resolution document does -- which does need to be cleaned up
tzviya: I think the homework is to go through these few documents. Wendy will go through. We will reach out to dissenter. The CoC will go to the AB, and the AC.
<dbooth> jen: The context here, SHeila did a lot to explain. This whole ombud work has been held up by other work lthat's been going on for 2.5 years at least. I'd be frustrated to have to explain where everything is. When input is sought on one thing, we should stick to that one thing.
<dbooth> ... We need to help PWE make progress.
<dbooth> ... And trusting that the chairs know what they're doing. It's hard!
<dbooth> ... i'd love to give more compassion to the chairs. They workd hard to make us productive. They know what they're doing!
<dbooth> ... 2.5 to define ombud! And it will be another year!
<dbooth> ... Need to prioritize what we do. Make post-it note of what I want to say.
<dbooth> ... I really need an effective ombud and process. I'm tired of getting bullied.
<cwilso> +1 Jen
<dbooth> ... Thank you for all the work you've done!
<Jem> bye everyone.