Re: Diversity fund selection criteria

Thanks Deborah. This is a terrific set of options!

Comments inline...

On 22/01/2019 13:11, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net wrote:
> Here are the possible directions we could go:
> 
> 1. First come, first served, as long as the person is from a group that 
> is underrepresented both in the W3C and in global power structures.
> 
> 2. First come, first served, as long as the person is from a group that 
> is underrepresented in global power structures whether or not that 
> person is from a group underrepresented in the W3C.
> 

I like both these options. We don't know anything much about diversity 
at W3, but I think we have enough of an idea to make option 1 the 
preferred choice?

Depending on whether we decide to ask people to self-identify or not, 
this option might need tweaking, but I think it works either way.

> 3. Do an analysis of the diversity of the WGs represented by the 
> applicants, and rank people according to the diversity of that 
> particular WG and its needs. (There are ways in which this would be 
> best, but it would also be incredibly fraught; we would be outsiders 
> trying to rank the diversity of the WGs and we would inevitably get a 
> lot wrong, because we are not asking people in the WGs to self-identify.)

+1

> 
> 4. Prioritize relatively recent WG participants, as well as established 
> participants who have not attended any in-person events.

+1

> 
> 5. Prioritize based on prior work done by the applicants. (This is the 
> one thing I don't want to do, because this will specifically reward 
> those people who are least likely to need it: established professionals, 
> whose work is known and rewarded in the field, who are likely to be able 
> to find alternate sources of funding.)
+1 though I note that regular attendance doesn't always equate to being 
visible in the industry.

> 
> 6. Rank amongst ourselves which underrepresented groups are most 
> underrepresented in the W3C, and prioritize that way. (This is also of 
> course ridiculously fraught and would probably blow up in our faces.)
> 
+1 At the meeting at TPAC, Nell was interested in finding out more about 
the state of things at W3. It really would be good to try and do this.

> There might be other ideas. Out of the ones I have suggested I 
> personally like 4, followed by 1 or 2. We need to come up with a balance 
> between what needs we are trying to meet, what is practical, and what is 
> minimally likely to cause a huge political backlash.

Unless we ask people to self-identify, options 1 and 2 may not give us 
much help, since we won't know which group someone considers themselves 
to be part of. Either way though, the fact that someone is from any 
under-represented group is likely to benefit diversity at W3.


Do you think we could use 4, with 1/2 being the thing that underpins 
everything?

Léonie.

> 
> Deborah
> 
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2019, Léonie Watson wrote:
> 
>> Everyone,
>>
>> The conversation about how we frame the diversity fund is closely 
>> linked to the selection criteria we'll use to choose the successful 
>> candidates.
>>
>> I admit I'm at something of a loss as to where to start with this one. 
>> Beyond being from an under-represented group (whether we ask people to 
>> self-identify which one or not), I'm not sure what criteria we should 
>> use.
>>
>> Hoping some of you have ideas...
>>
>> Léonie.
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 

-- 
Director TetraLogical

Received on Tuesday, 22 January 2019 21:02:20 UTC