Re: CfC for CECP

+1 to this revision.  Really nice job.

I have some editorial suggestions.  Since they are editorial I think 
they can be made without changing any reviews.  But if the PWE Chair is 
concerned that it might change reviews, then they can be ignored or 
deferred.  (I have a small substantive discussion as well.)

1. s/A *Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct* is useful to 
define/W3C's *Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct *defines/

2. Similar to (1) in Section 1.

3. s/The goal of this code of conduct is to ensure transparency in 
moderation of the working group and/The goal of this code of conduct is/

(explanation: I don't think that the code is to ensure transparency in 
moderation (nor am I sure I know what the phrase means).  I think the 
goal is simply the second half of the sentence.  If the intent is to say 
something about how issues are dealt with, I would take the second half 
of the sentence first (about good WG environment) and add a second 
phrase which says something like "and to describe what to do if issues 

4. s/W3C mailing lists/W3C mailing lists or github repositories/

5. Section 3, first line.  Add closing quotation mark.  Better yet, 
delete the first paragraph.  This paragraph seems appropriate to a WIP; 
not to a document going through an approval round.

6. Section 3.  It feels like prior to the bulletted list we should say: 
"Here is a list of unacceptable behaviors".

7. Section 3.  This one may be substantive and I might be uninformed.  
So I guess this is for discussion.  It says that "outing" is prohibited 
"except as necessary to protect other community members or other 
vulnerable people from intentional abuse".  I'm uncomfortable that we 
have exception clauses for outing.  I can't envision where that would be 
used.  And if there is an exception there - are their similar exceptions 
for other clauses?

8. In the discussion of reverse-isms, there is a mention of the Code 
"reserving the right".  I'm not sure what it means that a Code reserves 
a right.  Perhaps there is an implication that a person in authority 
needs to make some judgment?

9. Reporting.  Ombudspeople are mentioned in two separate paragraphs.

10. Some of the reporting section is a bit choppy and could be 
reformatted.  But maybe that is too big a job for this late in the 
cycle.  For example, talking about Chairs, we first say that they can 
raise issues with ombuds, then we say (in a separate paragraph) that 
they may take action.  I would have formatted it differently.  I would 
have said that Chairs are *expected *to deal with issues in their groups 
when they can but may ask for help from ombuds.  And I would have put 
that together in one paragraph.  I think that other streamlining in this 
section is possible.

Thanks again Tzviya and Ada.


On 12/19/2019 1:20 PM, Siegman, Tzviya wrote:
> Hi PWE,
> This is a Call for Consensus for the draft of the Code of Ethics and 
> Professional Conduct [1]. Please vote +1/-1 to show support or object 
> to the revision of CEPC. Vote 0 to abstain by close of business on 6 
> January 2020. If you do not vote, we will assume that you do not object.
> Comments can be sent to this list or added to GitHub at [2]. W3M will 
> review this document simultaneously.
> Please note that there are a number of issues in GitHub that are 
> related to PWE but not to CEPC or have been deferred to a later draft. 
> Further note that PWE has not het edited the Procedures document or 
> addressed the ombudsperson program. We have a lot to do in 2020!
> Thank you to everyone for your valuable input, especially Ada, who did 
> the majority of the editorial work.
> Tzviya
> [1]
> [2]
> *Tzviya Siegman*
> Information Standards Lead
> Wiley
> 201-748-6884
> <>

Received on Sunday, 22 December 2019 14:16:19 UTC