Meeting minutes
<wendyreid> date: 2024-10-29
<wendyreid> w3c/
Appeal of disciplinary sanctions
chris: Your github account can be connected to your w3c account.
wendy: The Process CG is working on this.
wendy: The question got raised because a disciplinary decision is also a kind of decision.
… Therefore, the wording implies that an appeal of a disc action would trigger a formal objection.
… We wanted the ombuds input, but the CG wants this resolved soon.
… Our docs describe a variety of dsciplicine actions.
… Who takes these actions, and who might be the appleal process for each?
… E.g., chair first, then ombud as second line of authority. If you disagree w chair action, you appeal to the ombud. And the final is to the CEO. Who would be the appeal body for the CEO?
… One suggestion is that that falls to the AB.
… But what if it's an issue w the advisory board?
… Do we need a different path entirely?
… The FOrmal Objection council is the combination of the TAG and AB, and we look at the issue and the team writes a report. It's technically minded process.
… Doesn't seem like the best for disciplinary actions.
tzviya8: This is rec to have something in place until the ombud program is in place?
wendy: This is for the process. More clear than it currently is, but open enough for the ombud program to fit in.
… There's an open quetion for appeal of CEO.
dbooth: What if there is no appeal for CEO decisions? It has to stop somewhere
Booth: what if we don't permit appeal beyond the CEO?
… it has to stop somewhere
dbooth: where is the limit for appeals
Booth: I propose that it stops at the CEO
<amy> +1 to deciding where this stops
jen: Could we do somthing that provides checks a nd balances. CEO would be like executive branch. AB woulc be likd congress. W3C legal would be like supreme court.
… Would hate for it to rely on one individual.
… In the AIA they badly mishandled an incident.
… The person filed legal action, and that org no longer exists, because the legal was devastating.
… If more people were involved, it adds complexity but also multiple perspectives.
… cooler heads, etc. Sheila might have thoughts.
sheila: I think there needs to be one more line of defense after the president, because the pres might be the source of the problem.
… But having that many peole involved may be too hard on the complainer.
… I like the idea that if there's a formal obj of the president's decision, assembling a 2-4 person mini council that deals w that, it would address not having the ombud position in place and the need for checks and balances.
<Zakim> amy, you wanted to support the idea that there should be multiple reporting steps including legal
amy: Want to support a framework w multiple places of accountability. At MIT we had mandatory reports, where you had to get training, and if something came to you, you had to report it.
… I think whatever frame work is set up, requirements are good.
… Want to avoid havind info go up the line and it stops. Too many people can be oppressive, and puts a problem on the person reporting,
… But a robust system could cause the report to stop without clear action or result.
<amy> +1 to clear end
wendy: Want to +1 suggest of maybe not stopping at the CEO, but having a clear end.
… We all agree that there should be an appeals process, and we don't want any one person to have unchecked power, but also don't want the issue to go on forever.
… Maybe you can appeal CEO, but once it's handled by that, there is no step after that.
… Need to define the end point.
<Zakim> sheila, you wanted to clarify
sheila: Agree. Need to clarify the end point.
<amy> I wonder if the Board being both legal and "in charge" of the CEO might be the end point. they "ok" the decsion or no?
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to explore sheila's suggestion
sheila: Re multiple avenues, strong advocate for that. Two separate conversations: What are avenues for complaining? Vs what are the process for appealing if there's an objection?
tzviya8: We should first discuss whether we agree that it should be possible to appeal the CEO decision
… If so, maybe 2-4 people to discuss that appeal.
… It's complicated to plan it, because this would be more sensitive than FO process, there's good reason to restrict the nubmbe
DBooth: question; in getting to the CEO, wouldn't there already be multiple people involved such as Ombudsman?
<sheila> my understanding is that we're discussing a temporary proposal before there's an ombuds
Wendy: Process only mentions the CEO; it doesn't mention other steps
<JenStrickland> I think we need to plan for a scenario that doesn't have the ombuds — since we don't yet have them.
Wendy: our proposal is 3 levels of "responders"
<amy> I think one problem is that the CEO used to be an ombuds
Wendy: front-line chairs, team contacts, people in meeting facilitation roles
… then the Ombuds layer and people the Ombuds might pull in
… the final layer is the CEO
… if something happens, say in a meeting, and the chair dealt with it or took it to an Ombuds, the system we want is that every level has authority to deal with the situation
<amy> +1 to every level having action they can take. chair to ask someone to stop, ombuds to suspend
Wendy: Ombuds have authority to take disciplinary action
… expelling someone from the organization or appealing an Ombuds decision goes to the CEO
<amy> +1 to CEO being the decision point to either expel or hear appeal to ombuds
Wendy: the only other situation I think we want to hand to the CEO is something so severe that it needs to be dealt with quickly and finally
… in such situations an Ombuds should still be involved
<amy> +1 to there being immediate "out" factors like physical assault
Wendy: I don't think we want the CEO to have to make all disciplinary actions
<sheila> I have to jump off in a minute, so I'll just share a couple thoughts here in case we decide to proceed with the idea of a sub-committee. (1) I agree with Wendy that it should be clear that this is the last step and also temporary, until we have an ombuds program. (2) I think an odd number of people (perhaps 3) would be ideal for a subcommittee, so
<sheila> as to avoid gridlock situations. (3) I recommend having a substitute committee member in case one of the three has a personal relationship with the person being discussed
<amy> I'm in favor of what Wendy just stated and think it's work typing out for resolution
Wendy: but we do want an appeal option for a CEO decision
DBooth: would something ever go directly to the CEO skipping the first two layers?
<amy> I think it should go through ombuds always
DBooth: I'd think an Ombuds should always be involved first
<JenStrickland> What about while we do not have ombuds, like now?
Wendy: yes; other than in a severe situation as I mentioned I don't think something should go directly to the CEO
<sheila> thanks all, take care!
DBooth: if there is the possibility of going directly to the CEO then I definitely think there needs to be an appeals process
… else there would be a single point of failure
<amy> +1 to through ombuds as we are looking at them as the experts and neutral
DBooth: if the situation has to go at least through an Ombuds first that lessens the impact of appeal stopping with the CEO
… but I'm not against having a 2-4 person small appeals group
jen: Can we write down what the options are at present?
Ralph: I think this discussion is going at too many levels. I suggest we think about what issues we want to solve
ralph: This discussion is going at too many levels. As we think of options, we should identify issues (but not solve). This gets into corporate law. This body can raise the issues.
Ralph: this gets to issues of corporate law. what this body can do is raise them
ralph: Eg what happens if the first decision is made by the CEO?
<amy> +1 to bringing in corp law experts
ralph: Then see how other orgs have solved similar scenarios.
wendy: Would only be making a rec
ralph: I don't think this body should rec that a particular body be responsible for appeal of CEO decision.
<amy> +1 to framing the issues (not suggesting solutions)
amy: Singling out one position ... should reframe that.
<JenStrickland> sidebar: what is our current path for raising concerns? I've been waiting for the ombuds program.
amy: We need a process, we need ombuds, need to bring in experts.
wendy: We want more than one person involved, but not too many, like FO council.
amy: Another top level problem: We don't have the legal expertise for how to handle this.
… But we know we need to operate within the law, and not just one country
ralph: W3C is incorporated within the US.
amy: When you become a member, you agree to the Code of Conduct
… US law vs other countries -- good reason to have legal advice.
wendy: Things we think are worth looking at?
… One is to define a clear appeal role. E.g., if the CEO makes a decision it can be appealed to the Ombuds, but not beyond. That we just an example.
wendy: Core quetsion: what is going on w the process? it talks only about the CEO's role and nothing else. But the question that Florian gets at is that the CEO should not be the final arbiter of all decision. But the wording currently implies that.
… If someone wanted to appeal a CEO decision, it would be FO council currently. I think that's what he's hoping to change.
wendy: What can we recommend? Make clear that there is a disc process to follow, which is not stated in the W3C Process?
jen: Sticking to identifying problems, W3C does have an HR. I'm suspicious of HR people. They are W3C employees. They could weigh in.
… W3C Legal can weigh in. Think we've outlined the problems that are priorities.
… That all power doesn' end up in one person's hands, multipel people are consulted. Need to protect W3C.
… Need to have the right people in the discussion before we get to solutioning.
tzviya8: W3C doesn't have HR, but works the an org that does HR function -- not really a part of the org.
… But we're trying to documen twhat goes in the process. Need it to be flexible.
… We have a draft doc, but ombuds are not hired yet. Process language is veyr tight, but this needs to be looser, because it points to other docs.
… Wantto be sure it doesn't go to the FO council.
<amy> +1 to recommending not going to FO council, but that other options
tzviya8: We don't want to outline the roles of a committee, but just say appeal can exist, and be to something other than the FO council.
wendy: I'll share this in the issue and w Florian. When they have langeuage we can contribute to it.
Request from Vision chair
wendy: They want review of vision, in terms of anyting that might have been missed.
… Right now it's a note, but the plan is to publish as a W3C statmeent. They want to know what would block it from going to Statement.
… Not editorial issues, but major things.
<amy> Tantek's mail to ac-forum "Requesting Wide Review for the Vision for W3C"
wendy: Please log issues and clarify if it is a blocker or can be dealt w later.
tzviya8: Looking for consensus or just review?
ralph: Everybody is encouraged to review it, but are there aspects that the PWE group shold pay close attn to?
wendy: Read the whole thing. But re our focus: on operational principles.
… make sure they align w Code of Conduct, our language
chris: Make sure that the op principles, which were designed to capture the principle that we are collaborative and diverse.
… Eg multi stakeholder, diversity. Did we capture those well enough?
… We're looking for collaborative production.
wendy: Prob appropriate for PWE to give it a checkmark in two weeks.
ralph: If this group is going to register a group comment, it should be very specific about what sections it considers within its perview.