GWGgRegor: I read the updated policy. You are missing something. If someone tests positive within 5 days of the event, did we discuss how notification should work?
gRegorThe testing section has "We encourage you to inform close contacts, should you test positive during or after the event, so that they can take appropriate precautions." which I guess we could make "organizers and close contacts" to be more clear.
GWGI think organizers after the event so they can advise attendees without disturbing anyone's privacy. As in, "We have been informed an attendee tested positive for COVID at our recent event. Please take appropriate precautions."
[Joe_Crawford][gRegorLove] I think it’s appropriate to make someone responsible for an after action report/contact tracing. A material statement that the organizers will be as transparent as possible about sharing appropriate notification information.
claudinec, [capjamesg], [snarfed]1 and [morganm]1 joined the channel
[tantek]1 Since the policy is quite long now (which is fine tbh, I think the details provided are helpful), I think it would help readability a lot if we simplified the "sternness" of the statements to say 3-4 verbs that have clear(er) distinct meanings. E.g. "required" is good, as in, if you don't follow this, you will be asked to leave. In addition, I think "request" could be good to indicate "should"-like things where it is strongly recommended
[tantek]Alternatively, simplifying to just "required" (MUST) vs. "recommended" (optional) would be even easier to read. And then bolding each instance to make it clear which sentences/paragraphs are which.
[tantek]The words / phrases to replace with one of those 2-3 include "can", "should", "asked to", "encourage you to", "no circumstances should you" for example
[tantek]2. "We encourage attendees to test 5 days after the event." <-- this is good summary advice. From what I have read on various health guidelines websites, the guidance is a bit different if symptomatic, anywhere from test immediately if symptomatic, to test 2d after symptoms arise, or both if you have enough tests. If you only have one test and you're symptomatic, I've seen general guidance to wait 2d and then test.
[tantek]Not sure how to best add this to the current text but thought it was worth mentioning as a possible area for improvement (testing sooner if you are symptomatic the evening, day, or two days after the camp)
[tantek]of these two, the first (1) is more important IMO. The clearer the language around what's required vs recommended, the greater chance of successful well-intentioned compliance in my experience.
AramZS, gRegorLove_, gRegorLove__, [manton], [mattl], aelaraji9, barnaby, sebbu2 and jimw joined the channel
sarajaksa.euedited /writing (+74) "/* Homebrew Website Club - Writing Edition */ Adding the link to the writing HWC that James was hosting" (view diff)
gRegorThanks [tantek], will take a closer look later today. At the risk of making the section a bit longer, maybe a definitions section like https://2023.northbaypython.org/health-and-safety-policy. Specifically looking at "require", "expect", and "encourage"
[tantek]Sounds good gRegor. Maybe even worth making the full policy a subpage of /2024/SD/ and then provide a summary of requirements in the section on /2024/SD ?
tantek.comedited /email (+216) "/* Email Services by Type */ incorporate indieweb examples under each service, sort by number of IndieWeb examples and recommendations thereof" (view diff)
tantek.comedited /CCPA (+310) "/* IndieWeb examples */ split into Service examples, call for IndieWeb Examples of use of CCPA deletion requests" (view diff)