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