RE: meetings minutes

Hi Amy, all,

> One note for Vlad, while I feel that the draft that we, (you, Ann and I), worked on for 
> the Code of Conduct was good work, i don’t feel that there was tacit acceptance of it.  

First of all, to give the credit where it's due - Daniel Dardailler has also contributed a lot to the new draft. 
And, since all discussions and review of each revision of the draft has happened on the PWETF email list - I do believe that if there was anything controversial in the draft it would 've been flagged and / or corrected, which is exactly what we all collectively did over the course of eight revisions of the draft. No objections and no further comments were submitted on the email list between mid-January (when the last revision was published) and March (when we made a first attempt to have a wide review) so I do believe that the draft was accepted by all then-current PWETF members.

> I think we understand that the new draft would  need to be reviewed along with the existing code of conduct.

I am fine with this, no one ever said that the review is not needed. My frustration is with the apparent attempt to disregard what we've done and start over, and if that is the case - I strongly disagree that this is a reasonable approach. We did do a good work, the draft we created is [in my opinion] far better document than the current CEPC, and is more suitable in style as W3C voice - ignoring the work already done would've been a grave mistake.

Thank you,
Vlad


-----Original Message-----
From: Amy van der Hiel <amy@w3.org> 
Sent: Monday, October 22, 2018 5:29 AM
To: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>
Cc: Amy van der Hiel <amy@w3.org>; ann.bassetti@yahoo.com; Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
Subject: Re: meetings minutes

Hi all,

Just to add, any delay from before was my fault as well (Ann did a ton. both of us felt overwhelmed and I too was not able to contribute as much as I would have wished).  

One note for Vlad, while I feel that the draft that we, (you, Ann and I), worked on for the Code of Conduct was good work, i don’t feel that there was tacit acceptance of it.  I know we had discussed many times that any change always absolutely needed wide review and discussion. This is partially because the existing Code of Conduct was widely reviewed by the previous TF, the AB, AC and is now part of the process document.  This is also because getting input from many others on what they value for any updates is crucial.  I think we understand that the new draft would  need to be reviewed along with the existing code of conduct.

best,
Amy


> On Oct 22, 2018, at 10:50 AM, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote:
> 
> Dear Ann,
>  
> Thank you very much for your email, and let me assure you that while your observation of my frustration is dead on, it is not with you. You and I were in touch (albeit infrequently) and even though I was aware of personal issues you had to deal with I didn’t quite realize [until now] the full extent of what you had to go through.
>  
> To certain degree, I am frustrated because of my own inactivity - for quite some time I’ve been just waiting patiently for better times and for things to happen (I am not generally known for being patient), and I feel now like I should’ve been more active to keep the CEPC related activities going getting it to fruition. But my main frustration comes from realization (and I would be happy to be wrong here) that there is no apparent interest in considering the work we’ve done collectively since the last TPAC, and the apparent intent for the newly formed CG to simply restart the activities from ground zero.
>  
> Again, I could be wrong here and I would be happy if I am, which is rarely the case. I wholeheartedly agree with you that during the last year we developed a new version of CEPC that is very consistent with the old version but also the one that both employs a much more considerable language and a positive communication style - something that is much more suitable for W3C as an organization. I truly wish that what your expectation that the new team will take our new draft as a foundation for which the final version is built would come true.
>  
> Thank you,
> Vlad
>  
>  
> From: ann.bassetti@yahoo.com <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ann.bassetti-40yahoo.com&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Sc-ry7Q3xvBnomEBkMoE2_ivmrUn9t3iPURPqMYwR3mRAaAfoxAAQdIUO6oCmSDQ&m=82S8namaPaJi6xbFuPcMmyJFNKXn9FWnxUpJXeww8Vc&s=EbQPmInfhe0fUKYBVZTJr9i7EBVA3-LIebnUX_Ih_G0&e=> 
> Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2018 3:14 PM
> To: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
> Subject: Re: meetings minutes
>  
> Hi Vlad and Team –
> 
> Here's some background on what happened... I take responsibility for failing to bring our proposed new Code of Conduct language to fruition. I was overwhelmed by personal responsibilities, and just did not have the extra bandwidth to finish this work properly. That's why I resigned from being co-chair.
> 
> (Here's my story: right after I retired from Boeing and agreed to help lead this team, I had to move my 96-year-old mother to nursing care. Then I had to fully empty and remodel her house prior to renting... a months-long, intense job. Next, my 81-year-old husband, who has late-stage emphysema, broke a vertebra. Intensely painful, this rendered him almost entirely dependent on me. Because we lived on a floating home, which is not accessible, we had to move to an apartment. Now I'm emptying and remodeling the houseboat, in order to rent it! Everyone is doing pretty well now, but it's been a wild few years, during which I had no option but to take care of those priorities. I deeply regret not being able to do a proper job with the PWETF, but sometimes life gets in the way!)
> 
> Vlad, when you originally voiced your concerns about the Code, I was grateful for a fresh voice, with a valuable point-of-view we had not considered. I was also grateful you took the initiative to write a new draft. (I applaud the principle to contribute an alternative when criticizing!)
> 
> You and Amy and I worked hard at understanding your concerns, and developing a new version that is consistent with the old version, but with more considerate language. We also worked to establish the linkages between the new draft language, the W3C Process, Best Practices, Procedures, Glossary, FAQ, etc.
> 
> I think the 3 of us came to a pretty good understanding. Unfortunately I don't think we ever achieved a full review by the rest of the Task Force. (That was when my husband cracked his vertebra, I had problems with the mailing list, etc.). Besides needing to reach consensus with the full team, we also need to get approval from W3M, the AC, and a legal review.
> 
> I am deeply grateful to Tzviya and Angel for picking up the leadership of this team. I have every expectation that the team will like our new draft as a solid foundation from which to build – but of course they now need the chance to read and come up to speed.
> 
> Tzviya – maybe you and I (and Amy?) could chat when you get back from TPAC. I'm not clear on what you want documented our previous work in the new GitHub repository. There were a lot of revisions; let's talk about what would be the best documentation to move us forward.
> 
> I realize you are frustrated, Vlad, after all that work. Please be frustrated with me and life, rather than Tzviya and the new team! Here's to a more productive new year, completion of this effort, and a deep bow to Vlad and all of you for putting up with me. I guarantee I'd rather be at TPAC having an impassioned discussion with all of you over a glass of wine. :-)
> 
> Best regards – Ann
> 
> Ann Bassetti
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
>  
> On ‎Tuesday‎, ‎October‎ ‎16‎, ‎2018‎ ‎01‎:‎11‎:‎51‎ ‎PM‎ ‎PDT, Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com> wrote: 
>  
>  
> Hi Tzviya,
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you for responding to my message and for raising important points, I will try to address them the best I can.
> 
>  • Recent history clarifications.
> You wrote: “I spent quite a long time reading through the emails from the last year, and I don’t quite agree that we got to a point where we all feel good about the latest version of the draft. Despite best intentions, the group never had a call to discuss the issues, and the draft never had a legal review.”
> I am afraid this perception isn’t accurate considering the fact that we did have two group calls (as captured by the revision history of the draft CEPC) and the statements made by the PWETF co-chairs in this particular email (attached). You were copied directly on it but I realize it’s easy to miss something that happened over 8 months ago, in mid-February 2018. So, I guess the right question to ask is “Why have we never had a call to discuss the final draft?”. Despite best intentions, despite so much efforts put into it and work being done, and despite multiple attempts to schedule a call (starting with this in early March 2018: https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.w3.org_Archives_Member_member-2Dpwetf_2018JanMar_0033.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Sc-ry7Q3xvBnomEBkMoE2_ivmrUn9t3iPURPqMYwR3mRAaAfoxAAQdIUO6oCmSDQ&m=82S8namaPaJi6xbFuPcMmyJFNKXn9FWnxUpJXeww8Vc&s=n8wbbeFqrapItYqMrG0HE1C26ZqvXqLhitRzpU-qQj4&e=) – we still managed to let it go into non-existence. Allowing the important work perish [whether by willful inaction or procrastination, or for any other reasons] after such an effort was put in place to improve the existing CEPC sends a very wrong message to anyone who could potentially be a future contributor.
> 
>  • Why the revision was / is needed.
> Without repeating a long discussion we had last year, my main concern about the current CEPC language is that, despite the fact that it’s been produced by the _Positive Work Environment_ task force, the document itself is very negative and, in my opinion, not only does not reflect who we (W3C) are as an organization, but also doesn’t accomplish the intended purpose, and is counterproductive. 
> Here is a simple example to explain what I mean: let’s say someone in a group setting is behaving badly showing little respect towards ideas and opinions of other members. Telling that person “Don’t be a jerk!” is counterproductive – what one would actually hear is an accusation “You are a jerk!”, which would immediately trigger a defensive reaction “I am NOT a jerk!” As a result, the “accusation” is dismissed as pointless and something that doesn’t apply. In the end – not only we failed to achieve the intended effect of correcting one’s behavior to the benefit of the group, but we also lost the opportunity to do it in future settings, with that person developing a dismissive position. 
> Unfortunately, this is how our current CEPC is worded – DON’T be X, NEVER do Y and Z, etc. – these kind of statements often trigger a dismissive reaction (this is something that doesn’t apply to me, I am a good guy!), and, therefore, deemed irrelevant. My initial intent (and the draft that we produced as a result of the collective work reflects that) was to reverse this approach, by creating a document that sets the high level of behavioral standards we want to aspire to, clearly defines what behaviors are not tolerated, and serves as a useful reference that brings the spotlight to certain behavioral issues people may not be consciously aware of. And the good thing – I believe that the draft we produced has accomplished all this! It may not be complete, something may still need to be added, but it fulfills its mission of being the document that outlines the guiding principles we want W3C participants adhere to.
> 
> 	• Using current CEPC as a basis for future work.
> I agree that it would be highly beneficial to capture the issues that we believe warrant an update of the Code, but I don’t think that we can accomplish the task by attempting incremental updates / edits. Sometimes, it’s actually easier to start over, especially if we want to adopt a radically different approach to how we communicate with the W3C participants and members. I do believe that the draft produced by the PWETF last year (and finalized early this year) is a much better starting point, and the issues have already been captured / discussed on the email list. It may be useful to try and transfer that collective wisdom into the new Github environment. For the sake of completeness, and to save our collective time of digging through the email archives, I attached the latest revision of the draft CEPC to this email.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Vlad
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com> 
> Sent: Friday, October 12, 2018 2:54 PM
> To: Levantovsky, Vladimir <Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
> Subject: RE: meetings minutes
> 
>  
> 
> Hi Vlad,
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for the note. Sorry you couldn’t make it to the meeting.
> 
>  
> 
> We are attempting to ensure that your feedback and all feedback from others on PWE is reflected. I spent quite a long time reading through the emails from the last year, and I don’t quite agree that we got to a point where we all feel good about the latest version of the draft. Despite best intentions, the group never had a call to discuss the issues, and the draft never had a legal review. The PWECG has every intention of picking up the work of PWETF, and we are in fact relying on the members of the PWETF to help us.
> 
>  
> 
> Because we are producing a document that can be used in a legal setting, not a specification, Ralph suggested, and everyone on the call agreed, that we approach proposed revisions with GitHub issues and documentation. This means that we propose changes based on research and evidence about why changes are needed. That does not mean we will discard the draft that you, Amy, Ann, and others proposed. It does mean that we have to look at why we are even proposing a revision of the CEPC.
> 
>  
> 
> I have asked all members to help document proposed changes based on the discussions last year in GitHub [1]. When we move forward with revisions, we need to be able to explain them to those not familiar with our history or discussions. Pointing to GitHub issues that document explanations is an excellent approach. I am open to other approaches, but we have decided that GitHub will be our main forum for work in this CG. 
> 
>  
> 
> We welcome your feedback and participation.
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you,
> 
> Tzviya
> 
>  
> 
> [1] https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__github.com_w3c_PWETF_issues&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Sc-ry7Q3xvBnomEBkMoE2_ivmrUn9t3iPURPqMYwR3mRAaAfoxAAQdIUO6oCmSDQ&m=82S8namaPaJi6xbFuPcMmyJFNKXn9FWnxUpJXeww8Vc&s=4Om2gRCOp4zm1-j_MMgo8EUXRwEMWifEYLgngWQdAd8&e=

> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Tzviya Siegman
> 
> Information Standards Lead
> 
> Wiley
> 
> 201-748-6884
> 
> tsiegman@wiley.com
> 
>  
> 
> From: Levantovsky, Vladimir [mailto:Vladimir.Levantovsky@monotype.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 11:10 PM
> To: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com>; public-pwe@w3.org
> Subject: RE: meetings minutes
> 
>  
> 
> Hi all,
> 
>  
> 
> Thank you for remembering both my criticism and my contributions to the CEPC rewrite, but I’d like to emphasize that:
> 
> 	• I did express an emphatic disapproval of the existing CEPC last November, and that was primarily the reason why I wrote the new draft (following the principle “criticize and contribute, not just criticize!”);
>  • My initial draft has been subjected to a wide group review and many revisions (eight revisions to be exact), where both the group co-chairs and the group members contributed their edits and ideas. The latest draft has all the revision history captured in it, and I believe we got it to a point where we all felt good about it and agreed that the legal review would be the appropriate next step.
>  • It is my (maybe wrong) perception that the newly formed PWECG has no intention to resume the work we conducted last year – I tried to get a clear answer on my questions related to the status of the draft we produced, but got nothing. If the newly formed CG does intend to simply restart the activity and ignore everything we have already done in the past (meaning that the work we conducted produced nothing but hot air) – I am not so sure I see an incentive to continue as a contributor, I cannot afford wasting time and effort on something we’ve already discussed and, at least at that time, were happy with the results.
>  • I did send my regrets.
>  
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Vlad
> 
>  
> 
> P.S. I do think it is a very worthwhile effort to resurrect the draft we created and see what, if anything, is left to be improved. We’ve come a long way from the very first version of it to the final revision, and in the process of doing it we discovered that the new draft was very much in line with the Code and policies other organizations have in place, both in wording and in spirit.
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> From: Siegman, Tzviya <tsiegman@wiley.com> 
> Sent: Thursday, October 11, 2018 1:39 PM
> To: public-pwe@w3.org
> Subject: meetings minutes
> 
>  
> 
> Thanks for attending and thanks to Dave for scribing
> 
>  
> 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.w3.org_2018_10_11-2Dpwe-2Dminutes.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=euGZstcaTDllvimEN8b7jXrwqOf-v5A_CdpgnVfiiMM&r=Sc-ry7Q3xvBnomEBkMoE2_ivmrUn9t3iPURPqMYwR3mRAaAfoxAAQdIUO6oCmSDQ&m=82S8namaPaJi6xbFuPcMmyJFNKXn9FWnxUpJXeww8Vc&s=ezSiuB_IPT8nw2o1VYSysO6YSdFnr4MPoEl7-jyZz2g&e=

> 
>  
> 
> Tzviya Siegman
> 
>  
> 
> <clipped earlier parts of the thread .. >
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Click here to report this email as spam.
> 



----------

This email has been scanned for spam and viruses. Visit the following link to report this email as spam:
https://us-spambrella.cloud-protect.net/index01.php?mod_id=11&mod_option=logitem&mail_id=1540200575-1820pwTZAquJ&r_address=vladimir.levantovsky%40monotype.com&report=

Received on Monday, 22 October 2018 10:08:21 UTC