Re: TPAC diversity scholarship

Thanks Oana. Some great points.

Some thoughts inline...

On 22/11/2018 08:39, Oana Galbenu wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> My thoughts on this:
> For a first (and unplanned) try it sounds to me that things were 
> alright, but with area for improvement.

Yes, I think that's a fair assessment.

> 1, 2, 3. Be as transparent as possible. Clearly explain why how, and who 
> is the target. I'd say to make it public in sort of campaign. The other 
> issue I see here is how to choose who receives the scholarship as I am 
> looking at a very long list and a limited amount of resources. I'd give 
> it to someone that does not necessarily has extensive experience, but 
> eager to get involved - we might get a nice surprise. It should be 
> visible to everyone, but we should define some acceptance criteria - not 
> all who appear to be part of an underrepresented group really is.

I agree that sometimes people misrepresent themselves, but I worry that 
acceptance criteria might accidentally exclude people?

> The invited expert on the other hand, I see as someone with extensive 
> experience in the area for which they were invited - hence would be in 
> all our best interest to have them at TPAC at least once. Again, 
> transparency I see as key here. I believe that not everyone understands 
> what is the difference between scholarship from the Invited Expert so 
> maybe if we wrote it down for everyone to understand, we'd have less 
> confusion. And also have acceptance criteria for what an IE is.

I think that making a clear distinction between the IE fee waver 
programme and the diversity scholarship makes sense. This year it was 
something like this:

The IE fee waver is available to all IE attending TPAC. It means they do 
not have to pay the daily fee to attend TPAC. The cost of this is 
covered by other attendees who opt in to pay an additional 5% on top of 
the standard TPAC fee.

Note: I believe the cost of the fee waver programme was not quite met by 
the 5% opt-in this year, and that there was a shortfall.

The diversity scholarship is open to people from under-represented 
groups who do  not participate on behalf of a W3C member that covers 
their costs. This includes IE and non-participants.

> 4. We should announce it at the same time we announce the date for the 
> next TPAC
TPAC 2019 (September, Fukuoka Japan) was announced in July of this year. 
One problem with announcing the diversity scholarship at the same time, 
is that it's too early to know whether enough donations will be raised. 
The donors for the 2018 scholarship didn't commit their funds until 
earlier this year, and although one of them has committed funds for the 
2019 scholarship the rest are unable to commit until their 2019 budgets 
are known.

I think the best bet might be to start fund raising immediately after 
TPAC ends, really step up fund raising in the early part of the year, 
and announce the diversity scholarship no later than the date that TPAC 
tickets go on sale - but a month or so before that if possible.

> 5. We should have at least one person from the CG.

Agreed. More than one person would be my preference.

> On the same note, but generally speaking, I feel like the entire 
> diversity and inclusion theme has become more like a trend among 
> conferences and companies employment process and not a solution to a 
> real problem, and I would hate it if we (Diversity and Inclusion Group 
> of all people) would go with the flow instead of pausing for a short 
> while to think things though and find a way to actually help someone in 
> need.

I'm not sure I understand this? I definitely agree that actually helping 
people is the goal, but I'm not sure I understand why more organisations 
doing it doesn't do that?

> Best,
> Oana
> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 1:08 PM Léonie Watson < 
> <>> wrote:
>     Everyone,
>     This year the W3C offered a diversity scholarship, intended to give a
>     financial grant to self-funded people from under-represented groups, to
>     assist with the cost of attending TPAC. It was the first time such a
>     thing had been tried, and as with all first attempts, some things
>     worked
>     well and some things didn't.
>     The W3C would like to create a diversity scholarship again for TPAC
>     2019, and has asked for our help putting it together.
>     1. How, when, and in what form, should we try to raise the money?
>     This year it began with an impromptu suggestion and donation from one
>     member, at the AC meeting in Berlin. A handful of other members
>     followed
>     suit, and so the scholarship fund was created. A follow-up email was
>     sent to the AC, which resulted in other donations, but it isn't clear
>     that this is the best approach to raising funds.
>     2. How should we present the scholarship?
>     The goal of the scholarship is to achieve greater diversity at TPAC,
>     but
>     W3C received criticism this year because it was felt that the
>     scholarship was based on positive discrimination, instead of being open
>     to any self-funded person wanting to attend TPAC.
>     3. How do we differentiate the scholarship from the Invited Expert (IE)
>     fee waver?
>     W3C also introduced a fee waver for all IE attending TPAC. There was
>     some confusion as to whether the scholarship and IE fee waver were the
>     same thing (they're not), and it would be good to avoid that confusion
>     next time.
>     4. When should the scholarship be announced and/or opened for
>     applications?
>     5. Who should be on the committee that awards the scholarships?
>     It was handled by W3M this year because the donors felt it was the best
>     approach at the time. It may be that this is still the best
>     approach, or
>     it may be that this CG could be involved in some way.
>     Putting this out for initial discussion and thoughts.
>     Léonie.
>     -- 
>     @LeonieWatson Carpe diem

@LeonieWatson Carpe diem

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2018 10:25:01 UTC