Meeting minutes
date: 2024-03-19
<tzviya> https://
tzviya: We published!
… as soon as we published, we got some comments and we're hoping to sneak it in
… there's an acknowledgements section and we forgot to update it
… there's a lot of people who contributed to this update, since we've been working on it for 4 years
… there's people who contributed who's names don't appear
… we're unsure how to approach editing the contributors
… thought we'd ask for advice
… we want to update
… typically a group adds all members, but we have a lot of members who do not attend
… we forgot a few important people
[discussing contributor eligibility]
csarven: The complaints being mentioned, was it within PWE or elsewhere, was it reported or processed in any way? The optics might matter for attribution
… or if it's "I've observed this person violating the code..." but the process to handle it has not been followed yet
sheila: Makes sense to me
tzviya: What makes this challenging, the reporting mechanisms are inadequate
… we got comments on the ombuds situation
… it's true, we've been working on it, Sheila has been working on it
… it's out of our hands
… if confidentiality were in place, and this was reported, we'd not know if it was handled
… I don't want to know details, but I'm uncomfortable with removing someone based on what others' allude to
… confidentiality issues
sheila: I understand someone raising it
… it's hard to see people credited who haven't followed the spirit of the document
… I wonder if there's a world where they haven't been removed from the organization, as long as they are still a member, they are credited
… we don't have the context or the authority to determine whose violations are bad enough to warrant removal
… that's maybe as far as we can go with it
… don't feel comfortable ranking violations against each other
JenStrickland: We're in a weird place, the ombuds program is not working, there's not always proper resolution for issues even now
… we have to be neutral
<sheila> +1
tzviya: Might be worth doing as a paragraph of contributors
<Ralph> [Ralph joins]
csarven: Separate topic maybe, in the SOLID CG, we have a code of conduct, we also acknowledge the W3C code
<tzviya> wendyreid: It is tricky but this document is still unique. We wouldn't have this discussion if it was a technical document. And we do have the culture of ack'ing and giving credit where it is due. It could be arbitrary / and weaponised. I can also see the other side seeing someone's name...
csarven: our code of conduct extends the W3C one, we have enforcement to a certain extent, improve the work space where possible
… I'm curious to know, if this is a rare thing in W3C to have their own CoC committee or enforcement processes
<csarven> Solid CoC: https://
[giving Ralph an overview of discussion so far]
Ralph: My intuition is that removing someone from a published list may raise flags, but updating it with people who need to be included is reasonable
tzviya: Sheila, any update on ombuds?
sheila: I met with Seth, it's on his priority list
… he is going to do more thinking on internal vs external but is leaning towards external
… I'm going to send him some resources
… challenge is finding ombuds who aren't academic-focused
… resources for sourcing outside those institutions
JenStrickland: Would there be something that's more conflict-mediation oriented? Non-violent communication practitioners
sheila: I'm looking at that, and we're looking at mediators/investigators, and I'm talking with the international ombuds association to try and find options, I've only done this in the US
… we need international
tzviya: Thanks
tzviya: Now that the code is published and ombuds is moving, what now?
Ralph: I would love to see effort put into what kinds of activities we can do to increase positivity
… what can we do during remote meetings, in person meetings, etc
… help us feel more connected
sheila: Dispute resolution guidelines, I did one of the AC onboarding videos, and I wanted to talk about dispute resolution
… I know we're working on ombuds and mediators
… a priority for me too
tzviya: We put it on ice a bit since we didn't know how to proceed
wendyreid: We need to have it reviewed, but we did want to publish parts of it that we felt good about
csarven: If any group were to provide training, it would be this group, to come in and understand the code and facilitate the meetings
… more training for community groups
… a lot of the encounters I have, I think people are unaware of the code
… or at least unaware of its contents
… training for chairs to be more understanding of dynamics
… more to it than common sense, why the code exists and what are our expectations
… even in SOLID's case, we run into cases where we're not sure how to handle something
… we're hoping that there can be more input to make CGs a better work space
… this group can help educate and train the wider community on the code and its contents
<sheila> love the idea of a resource and training hub around the Code etc
JenStrickland: Sarven brings up an interesting point, there is the training, but maybe members of PWE can go to groups to help educate them
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to mention terminology
<JenStrickland> C.O.C. is such a common acronym. It's not like it's used as the curse word, spoken as a rooster, for example. The irony that Sheila works for Bocoup with their rooster makes me lol.
tzviya: We've done talks, we've done sessions on running better meetings
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to mention translations
tzviya: in terms of speaking about the code, it's not done yet, an overview for chairs to do
… giving chairs a script to run through
tzviya: I haven't looked at this in a while, but to give chairs materials to work with
sheila: I really love the suggestion, I wonder if we could do an activity to identify the biggest pain points, look at the resources, and then see if we're covering them
… look at our resource library and filling the gaps
… here is an organized set of resources
… here's a way for us to be proactive
wendyreid: Let's build up those resources! We should bring back the chairs meeting, and more training and resource opportunities
csarven: I think as a side effect, by attracting more individuals to the conduct, we can improve behaviour and work
sheila: Wanted to add, we also could revisit the conversation of the tenor of the listserv
… resource lists, next steps on dispute resolution, something around listservs and moderation
JenStrickland: The trainings that Wendy held had lower attendance, maybe it's worth having PWE do sessions with groups presenting the training, as a conversation too
… get feedback and information on challenges groups have about implementing positive work environments and inclusion in their groups
<sheila> +1 to the idea of a tour, once we have our resources gathered!
JenStrickland: what we're doing in PWE is what W3C wants, more collaboration, more inclusion, more technical development that benefits society
… a good example is the sustainability group, they work hard to work together
… an opportunity for us to help
tzviya: Thanks Jen
… I think we need to gather resources, then it would be interesting to see if we can pull something like that off, if groups are willing to spare their time
JenStrickland: Maybe a requirement for groups, to address issues that have been reported, or to prevent them
tzviya: I hear what you're saying, I'm not sure we can change groups but stepping in, but it needs some thought on how to proceed
… we need to sell it by convincing them that this will improve their product, their work
<Ralph> [CWilso joins]
tzviya: here's how diversity can improve your specification
… first step, lets get our ducks in a row
… get the documents organized