IRC log of pwe on 2023-11-07

Timestamps are in UTC.

14:55:09 [RRSAgent]
RRSAgent has joined #pwe
14:55:13 [RRSAgent]
logging to https://www.w3.org/2023/11/07-pwe-irc
14:55:14 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, make logs Public
14:55:45 [Zakim]
Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:55:48 [wendyreid]
chair: wendyreid
14:56:01 [wendyreid]
date: 2023-11-07
14:57:21 [dbooth]
dbooth has joined #pwe
14:57:32 [dbooth]
rrsagent, pointer?
14:57:32 [RRSAgent]
See https://www.w3.org/2023/11/07-pwe-irc#T14-57-32
14:58:07 [dbooth]
present+
14:59:51 [nigel]
nigel has joined #pwe
15:01:56 [Ralph]
present+
15:02:34 [Ralph]
present+ DBooth, JenStrickland, WendyReid
15:03:00 [wendyreid]
https://w3c.github.io/PWETF/conflict_resolution.html
15:03:16 [Ralph]
Wendy: I merged the document after working through some of the issues
15:03:22 [Ralph]
... thanks, David
15:03:37 [Ralph]
... David raised some good questions for further discussion
15:03:41 [Ralph]
... I created issues for those
15:04:02 [Ralph]
... I forgot to share those for today's meeting
15:04:05 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/359
15:04:08 [JenStrickland]
JenStrickland has joined #pwe
15:04:09 [wendyreid]
https://github.com/w3c/PWETF/issues/360
15:04:12 [JenStrickland]
present+
15:04:17 [wendyreid]
present+
15:05:01 [Ralph]
Wendy: two main questions:
15:05:20 [Ralph]
... 1. confidentiality process for CoC violations
15:05:57 [Ralph]
... 2. @@
15:06:29 [Ralph]
... for #1 there may need to be non-anonymized records in order for a group of Ombuds to identify patterns
15:06:38 [Ralph]
s/@@/participation in a mediation process
15:06:44 [naomi]
naomi has joined #pwe
15:07:04 [Ralph]
... for #2, what if there are two parties and one declines to participate in mediation
15:07:30 [Ralph]
[Annette joins]
15:07:35 [Ralph]
present+ AnnetteGreiner
15:07:42 [wendyreid]
ack Ralph
15:08:16 [wendyreid]
Ralph: My intuition is that these two questions would have usual accepted practices in the ombuds field, but what's unique about us is our community
15:08:25 [dbooth]
ralph: My intuition: these two questions -- great questions -- would have usual acceptd practices in the ombud field, but uniique for us is we're distributed globally and across employers.
15:08:25 [wendyreid]
... distributed around the globe, employers, etc
15:09:01 [wendyreid]
... it might be worth looking at other organizations and how they handle this
15:09:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: perhaps these are questions that the Ombuds group itself needs to work out
15:09:34 [Ralph]
Wendy: yes; some of the training may inform how we build these processes
15:09:54 [annette_g]
annette_g has joined #pwe
15:10:03 [Ralph]
... and I suspect we'll have to do some research into what other similar technical standards organizations do
15:10:03 [JenStrickland]
I was just looking through IEEE: https://www.ieee.org/about/corporate/governance/index.html
15:10:11 [JenStrickland]
I don't see anything there.
15:10:37 [dbooth]
q+
15:11:20 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:11:27 [Ralph]
Wendy: what happens if someone behaves badly in an organization like ISO
15:11:50 [Ralph]
David: Ralph, do you have any ideas of what might be different?
15:11:56 [wendyreid]
ack Ralph
15:12:10 [wendyreid]
Ralph: Btoh questions touch on what enforcement authority we have
15:12:46 [wendyreid]
... the second, mediation, it's often the case that the parties in a contract formally agree to participate in mediation
15:12:58 [sheila]
sheila has joined #pwe
15:13:15 [Ralph]
[Sheila arrives]
15:13:21 [Ralph]
present+ SheilaMoussavi
15:13:30 [sheila]
present+
15:13:51 [wendyreid]
Ralph: Not sure how to do it retroactively, we could make it part of the individual agreement
15:14:02 [Ralph]
David: it would be easy enough to add to the CoC
15:14:10 [Ralph]
... people are expected to help resolve it
15:14:23 [annette_g]
Present+ annette_g
15:14:33 [wendyreid]
Ralph: From a contractural perspective, say something like the IE agreement, people do sign that
15:14:53 [wendyreid]
... we could add it
15:15:03 [dbooth]
q+
15:15:17 [wendyreid]
... what about when someone refuses mediation, could also object to changes to the participation policy
15:15:21 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:15:28 [Ralph]
David: I also think it could go in the resolution process
15:15:41 [Ralph]
... if someone refuses to engage in mediation, just go on to the next step
15:15:57 [Ralph]
Wendy: it's not unusual to have updates to agreements; e.g. software terms and conditions
15:16:27 [Ralph]
... the Participation Agreement could be updated, we send everyone notice and ask them to agree to the updated version
15:16:42 [Ralph]
... ask people to agree to the CoC
15:16:54 [Ralph]
... or, as David suggests, proceed to the next step in the resolution process
15:17:14 [annette_g]
q+
15:17:15 [wendyreid]
ack annette_g
15:17:47 [Ralph]
Annette: when we have a new year of participation it's probably an easier 'sell'; we can say that there are new conditions
15:18:01 [Ralph]
... unless it happens soon it may take a while
15:18:14 [Ralph]
... but different groups renew at different times
15:18:21 [JenStrickland]
q+
15:18:25 [wendyreid]
ack JenStrickland
15:19:06 [Ralph]
Jen: in AGWG we were looking at the culture of the group and I had made a suggestion that every member of the group take refresher training on CoC, meeting requirements, etc.
15:19:22 [Ralph]
... this is beyond the scope of PWE but maybe could be raised elsewhere
15:20:00 [Ralph]
... as we think about trying to make sure our membership is set up for effective collaboration, get bias and unconscious bias training, updates on new process, CoC, etc. having a regular refresher to which they must agree is a great idea
15:20:26 [dbooth]
q+
15:20:36 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:20:42 [Ralph]
David: bottom line, there's no way to force someone to participate in mediation
15:21:04 [Ralph]
... so we just need to say what happens if they are asked to participate and choose not to participate
15:21:15 [Ralph]
... the obvious thing is to proceed to the next step
15:21:36 [Ralph]
Wendy: we need a process [to document what has been done]
15:22:16 [wendyreid]
Ralph: I think David's correct, we don't need to have a complete process right away, some might depend on the circumstances
15:22:28 [wendyreid]
... for confidentiality, the trained ombuds can help with this
15:22:42 [wendyreid]
... generally accepted practices
15:23:14 [Ralph]
Wendy: David also raised in the confidentiality: suppose an incident occurred and the person who has been impacted decides to go public with their experience ...
15:24:08 [Ralph]
... I think it would be safe to recognize that could occur
15:24:25 [dbooth]
q+
15:24:31 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:24:46 [Ralph]
David: maybe we just acknowledge that anyone who is affected has the right to go public
15:24:52 [sheila]
q+
15:24:59 [Ralph]
... similarly, anyone accused also has the right to make the accusation public
15:25:17 [wendyreid]
ack Ralph
15:25:18 [JenStrickland]
q+
15:25:19 [wendyreid]
Ralph: +1 to David
15:25:22 [Ralph]
... the only ones bound by confidentiality are the Ombuds and those trying to help the process
15:25:24 [Ralph]
Ralph: +1
15:25:28 [wendyreid]
ack sheila
15:25:48 [Ralph]
Sheila: change the language that it's the Ombuds and third-party actors who are required to maintain confidentiality
15:25:58 [wendyreid]
ack JenStrickland
15:26:02 [Ralph]
... you can't expect confidentiality from the other party
15:26:07 [Ralph]
Jen: this is a trick area
15:26:47 [Ralph]
... I imagine that if you have less power it is sometimes how you equalize the situation but also sometimes its a way of crushing what you might have to say
15:26:53 [wendyreid]
q+
15:27:22 [Ralph]
... if members of the W3C community have such an incident, then following the Code should be the first step
15:27:47 [Ralph]
... but in other recent incidents a party simultaneously went public
15:28:35 [Ralph]
... someone going public could cause additional harm to the other party
15:29:08 [Ralph]
... people should use our processes but we don't want to silence people
15:29:10 [wendyreid]
q+
15:29:14 [wendyreid]
ack wendyreid
15:29:48 [Ralph]
Wendy: I like the idea "confidentiality is expected of Ombuds and mediators but not of the parties"
15:30:27 [Ralph]
... but also those involved [in processing the incident] should not be influenced by public discussion
15:30:56 [Ralph]
... we wouldn't want public commentary to influence our decision
15:31:07 [Ralph]
... public information might not be used by the Ombuds
15:31:13 [wendyreid]
ack Ralph
15:31:59 [Ralph]
Ralph: I'm wary of stepping to far into a courtroom style of procedure
15:33:34 [Ralph]
... let's not attempt to write W3C General Laws :)
15:33:47 [Ralph]
Wendy: that's fair, and we also want our Ombuds to develop some of this
15:33:48 [dbooth]
+1 to Ralph's comment.
15:34:05 [dbooth]
q+
15:34:19 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:34:25 [Ralph]
David: there's still a question about chairs
15:34:37 [Ralph]
... Ombuds will have training and will understand how to deal with confidentiality
15:34:43 [Ralph]
... will chairs have as much training?
15:35:08 [Ralph]
... we'd want to expect chairs to respect confidentiality but will they know of that expectation?
15:35:16 [Ralph]
Wendy: we instruct chairs to go to Ombuds
15:35:41 [Ralph]
... we instruct them that they should talk to an Ombuds whenever something comes up even if they expect to handle it themselves
15:35:55 [Ralph]
... part of the reason for Ombuds is to advise on how to handle situations
15:36:24 [Ralph]
... the chairs should know to go to Ombuds
15:36:49 [Ralph]
Jen: but chairs should also be told the confidentiality expectations
15:37:03 [Ralph]
... what accountability is there? who manages accountability?
15:37:07 [sheila]
good question
15:37:15 [Ralph]
Wendy: good question
15:37:52 [wendyreid]
Ralph: It is a good question, what are our juridictional obligations/expectations?
15:38:23 [wendyreid]
... this group has proposed the ombuds program, and if they are as proposed, then W3C has the accountability to ensure they are performing as expected
15:39:15 [wendyreid]
... the proposed ombuds program says there will be a process for selecting ombuds
15:39:35 [Ralph]
Ralph: and the Ombuds will be accountable to that process
15:39:54 [Ralph]
Wendy: we may need to clarify what happens if a chair doesn't follow the procedures
15:39:57 [sheila]
q+
15:40:16 [Ralph]
... the Ombuds should advise the chairs
15:40:26 [wendyreid]
ack sheila
15:40:37 [Ralph]
... but once advised, if a chair continues to not follow the process, that's another violation
15:40:52 [Ralph]
Sheila: there would be a general statement that the same process applies to chairs
15:41:09 [Ralph]
... if that isn't documented, that could be a next step; how this all applies to chairs
15:41:24 [Ralph]
... that could live in one place and be referenced by other documents
15:42:14 [Ralph]
Wendy: documenting the escalation path in one place and state that it applies to everyone
15:42:31 [annette_g]
q+
15:42:59 [sheila]
q+
15:43:07 [Ralph]
... Process does mention involving a participant's employer and we don't control the process an employer follows
15:43:10 [wendyreid]
ack annette_g
15:43:40 [Ralph]
Annette: the difference in chairs is not necessarily in the escalation path but in the conditions in which something might be triggered
15:43:42 [wendyreid]
ack sheila
15:44:07 [Ralph]
Sheila: one of the benefits of having Ombuds and mediators is that people have more than one option
15:45:00 [Ralph]
... if they aren't satisfied with one they have another avenue available
15:45:00 [Ralph]
... making explicit that this is an option can be comforting
15:45:09 [dbooth]
q+
15:45:13 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:45:15 [Ralph]
... this addresses the "this didn't go anywhere and I need it to" cases
15:45:18 [dbooth]
https://www.w3.org/Consortium/cepc/#Reporting
15:45:33 [Ralph]
David: Section 4 of CoC mentions bringing issues to the chair; that's a tie-in
15:46:05 [Ralph]
Wendy: yes, we want the chair to be the first point of contact; they have more context
15:46:31 [Ralph]
... I do think we should make it explicit that going to the chair is the first thing
15:46:49 [Ralph]
... but you could go directly to an Ombuds, or to another Ombuds
15:47:07 [Ralph]
... the chair may not always be the most appropriate first contact
15:47:26 [Ralph]
... this depends on the situation; e.g. if an incident occurred outside a meeting
15:47:44 [Ralph]
David: Section 4 doesn't say what to do if you don't get the help you need
15:48:03 [Ralph]
... we could add "if you don't get what you need, seek another person"
15:48:14 [Ralph]
Wendy: we can do such refinement
15:48:32 [Ralph]
... I'll add some of this to the conflict resolution document
15:50:44 [dbooth]
q+
15:50:50 [wendyreid]
ack dbooth
15:50:52 [Ralph]
Jen: I think we'd all benefit from learning more empathy of others' situations
15:51:03 [Ralph]
David: on the document naming
15:51:10 [Ralph]
... I really like the word "incident"
15:51:34 [Ralph]
... I remind you of my proposal to use "Incident Resolution" as the document name
15:51:41 [Ralph]
Wendy: yep
15:52:20 [Ralph]
[adjourned]
15:52:35 [Ralph]
zakim, end meeting
15:52:35 [Zakim]
As of this point the attendees have been dbooth, Ralph, JenStrickland, WendyReid, AnnetteGreiner, SheilaMoussavi, sheila, annette_g
15:52:37 [Zakim]
RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:52:38 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/07-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:52:45 [Zakim]
I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent. Goodbye
15:52:45 [Zakim]
Zakim has left #pwe
15:53:35 [Ralph]
I/date: 2023-/Topic: Issues #359 and #360
15:53:57 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/07-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
15:55:05 [Ralph]
i/date: 2023-/Topic: Issues #359 and #360
15:55:10 [RRSAgent]
I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2023/11/07-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
15:55:33 [Ralph]
rrsagent, bye
15:55:33 [RRSAgent]
I see no action items