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