Re: Diversity fund selection criteria

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