- From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2019 22:41:04 -0500
- To: lw@tetralogical.com, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
- Cc: "public-idcg@w3.org" <public-idcg@w3.org>
On 1/22/2019 4:01 PM, Léonie Watson wrote: > 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? I'm uncomfortable with FCFS. That means that if the most deserving candidate (whatever deserving means) is traveling whenever the call for applications hits, that they lose the opportunity to be selected. > > 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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >
Received on Wednesday, 23 January 2019 03:41:07 UTC