- From: Léonie Watson <lw@tetralogical.com>
- Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2019 17:01:32 -0500
- To: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>, deborah.kaplan@suberic.net
- Cc: "public-idcg@w3.org" <public-idcg@w3.org>
On 22/01/2019 22:41, Jeff Jaffe wrote: > > 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. Good point. If we take it that representation of an under-represented group is the given, is it then enough to prioritise those that are described in 4 (new participants and people who have not attended TPAC before)? > > >> >> 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 Wednesday, 23 January 2019 22:02:03 UTC