- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2019 19:45:39 -0500
- To: "Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile" <chaals@yandex.ru>, public-idcg@w3.org
No strong opinions on the approach, but a few editorial comments. On 1/2/2019 5:03 PM, Charles 'chaals' (McCathie) Nevile wrote: > Sorry for the delayed reply. I think we get some value from implying > people should explain why they are a valid recipient, but I know > (from specific anecdote) that pre-identifying groups we thought were > valid recipients caused eventual recipients to question their > eligibility when applying. > > So I like the motivation for the proposal. > > Reading through some of the material Deborah offered, I wonder if > there is an approach we can take that tries to split the difference, > something along the lines of the following (but better worded - I can > see issues already here...): > > [[[ > The purpose of the scholarships are to increase diversity of > perspectives offered in discussion, by supporting attendance from > people who otherwise could not participate in the event. The selection > criteria will focus on bringing new or under-represented individual > perspectives I'm not sure what an under-represented individual perspective is. That seems to be something that could equally apply to someone who is not at all from any under-represented group. > rather than attempting to balance the presence of specific "groups" or > communities. > > To apply, you will be asked to provide a couple of sentences > explaining the perspectives you bring, and the specific meetings you > intend to participate in. > > As typical for many US-headquartered technical organisations, I would leave out the above fragment. > there are many under-represented communities in W3C. Communities who > are obviously who are under-represented include women, people from > Africa, the Middle East, Central and South America, Central, South and > South-East Asia, refugees and people providing support to refugees, > and people with disabilities - especially those who need support for > an assistant or carer. This appears to leave out Americans and Europeans who are from under-represented minorities. I don't feel great about that. > > The program is still experimental, and we encourage feedback on what > works well and what needs improvement to help us achieve our goals. > This is welcome either anonymously or as a public contribution. > ]]] > > cheers > > Chaals > > On Wed, 02 Jan 2019 10:24:47 +0100, Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk> wrote: > >> Thanks Oana. >> >> I'd like to put this proposal to a Call For Consensus (CFC), but it >> would be good to get a sense of other people's thoughts on this idea >> first. >> >> Léonie. >> >> >> On 19/12/2018 18:02, Oana Galbenu wrote: >>> Sound good to me. And pretty elegant I would say. >>> Best, >>> Oana >>> On Wed, 19 Dec 2018, 19:50 Léonie Watson <tink@tink.uk >>> <mailto:tink@tink.uk> wrote: >>> I was talking about this with another person recently, and they >>> suggested that we may not need to identify individual >>> under-represented >>> groups, but could just make it clear that the diversity >>> scholarship is >>> open to anyone who believes they are from an under-represented >>> group. >>> It would mean that we don't have to be specific about which >>> under-represented groups are included (and which are not), and it >>> removes the risk of us excluding anyone because we accidentally >>> left >>> their particular group off the list. >>> It would also mean that we don't need to ask people to identify >>> which >>> under-represented group they belong to. >>> It may mean that some people try to game the system, but W3 is >>> a small >>> enough community that I think anyone trying to do that would >>> quickly be >>> found-out. >>> It may also mean that we cannot guarantee diversity within the >>> group of >>> people selected to receive scholarships, but given the >>> relatively small >>> number of scholarships likely to be awarded, it may be enough that >>> we're >>> helping people from any under-represented groups. >>> Thoughts? >>> Léonie. >>> -- @LeonieWatson tink.uk <http://tink.uk> Carpe diem >>> >> > >
Received on Thursday, 3 January 2019 00:45:46 UTC