RE: W3C action/response to the BLM Movement

Thanks for bringing this up, Wendy. I think the discussion about whether W3C can offer a policy statement is taking us a bit off-track about what we can do (as opposed to what we can say). There are many things large and small that we as individuals and as an organization can do, ranging from assessing recruitment methods to being more cognizant of microaggressions. I think the most important point is to make sure that we don’t perpetuate the existing problems.

Tzviya Siegman
Information Standards Lead
Wiley
201-748-6884
tsiegman@wiley.com<mailto:tsiegman@wiley.com>

From: Judy Brewer <jbrewer@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, June 5, 2020 9:56 AM
To: Reid, Wendy <wendy.reid@rakuten.com>; public-idcg@w3.org
Cc: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org>
Subject: Re: W3C action/response to the BLM Movement


Wendy,

Going back to your original posting with regard to W3C action/response, I hope that we also look at this from a perspective not only of what we say but what we do.

W3C has made some progress over the years on some aspects of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), including gender and disability, by approaching this from multiple directions: hiring, outreach, choices of topics and presenters, work areas, etc. While within an international and primarily membership organization, racial and cultural diversity issues may be more complex to take up directly at the umbrella level of the organization, I think that nevertheless it is important to do so and that there are multiple ways to approach this.

I look forward to discussing aspects of what we do in W3C towards DEI goals, as well as what we say, and welcome discussion on that in IDCG and elsewhere in W3C if others are similarly interested.

-  Judy


On 6/5/2020 8:03 AM, Jeff Jaffe wrote:

Wendy,

I agree with you that the key question is whether a statement of the form "W3C supports Black Lives Matters" is more similar to S5 or S6.

That may be a judgement call.

The examples given for S5 essentially say that W3C may make statements of the form W3C supports: (1) that everyone be able to access the net, or (2) accessibility, or (3) internationalization because these are established consortium values.

The examples given for S6 essentially say that W3C cannot make statements related to (1) SOPA, (2) net neutrality, (3) country closures of the net, (4) party preference, or (5) abortion rights because they are political issues.

My interpretation was that if we could not even express an opinion on a topic close to the web (e.g. country closures of the net), then arguing that BLM is S5 rather than S6 is a tough case to make.

But that is only one opinion (mine).

Would you like to come to the next Advisory Board meeting (18 June) to either argue that we should change the overall policy or to argue that BLM fits into category S5?

Jeff
On 6/4/2020 9:55 PM, Reid, Wendy wrote:
Hi Jeff,

Thank you for the quick reply. I too hope we can come up with some actionable items for the organization. I don’t expect an answer tonight, but in reading over the policy in [1] I do not see anything that appears to contravene with the W3C agreeing with and supporting the position of Black Lives Matter.

For anyone who doesn’t want to read the entire thing, I believe these are the salient points:

Public positions on "political" (S5, S6) issues may be made with any of the first two levels of association (A1, A2) without consultation with the Membership or the Advisory Board
Public positions on political issues that reflect established W3C values (S5) may be made at any level of association.
Rationale: These are not new policies but application of existing values and principles to policy subjects, and hence do not require approval.
Public positions on partisan issues (S6) have generally been avoided by W3C (with A3, A4, or A5), since W3C is a Member organization and Members have different points of view about certain partisan policy issues. However, W3C Staff finds some of these limits incredibly frustrating. Here we are discussing issues that may be clear in the minds of W3C staff, and the fact that their “employer” – W3C - says nothing is negative for morale. It would be interesting to get the AB’s views if there were a way to have W3C voice its point of view on positions of this type.

It is good to see that individuals are permitted to comment as themselves and staff, but on a matter like this, I think it sends the wrong message for the organization not to comment. But I only quickly perused the document, so clarification would be helpful!

Thanks,
Wendy

From: Jeff Jaffe <jeff@w3.org><mailto:jeff@w3.org>
Date: Thursday, June 4, 2020 at 8:08 PM
To: "Reid, Wendy" <wendy.reid@rakuten.com><mailto:wendy.reid@rakuten.com>, "public-idcg@w3.org"<mailto:public-idcg@w3.org> <public-idcg@w3.org><mailto:public-idcg@w3.org>
Subject: Re: W3C action/response to the BLM Movement


Thanks, Wendy.

Several years ago, the Team worked with the Advisory Board to establish policies about W3C making public statements [1].  Based on this policy, it is not in our scope to make a statement about Black Lives Matter, until/unless we change [1].

W3C does support the work of IDCG and strives to improve inclusion and diversity.  I endorse your renewed call for additional action in this area.  I hope to be able to make this call.  June is the time for my annual blog report on Diversity at W3C [2], and so this discussion is very timely for me.

Jeff

[1] https://www.w3.org/2014/01/PSGMatrix


[2] https://www.w3.org/blog/tags/inclusion/

On 6/4/2020 7:03 PM, Reid, Wendy wrote:

Dear Colleagues,



I hope everyone has been keeping well and safe during these times. I wanted to reach out to this group as I believe we need to do something to address the W3C’s lack of diversity and inclusion in 2020, a time where we see protests for the rights of black people take over not just the United States and Canada, but many other places as well.



The web is a platform for many great things, including the organizing for many of these protests and movements, but it is also where world leaders make threats and groups gather to profess hate. As an organization we’ve built specifications around the ideas of inclusivity, security, and privacy, but the faces in the rooms where these discussions are held still do not reflect the makeup of the world around us. Tech, and by extension the W3C, is notoriously male and white.



I notice that W3C has not yet made a public statement about their support for the Black Lives Matter movement, and I wanted to come here because if/when that happens, the logical request will be for what actions is W3C intending to make to address our lack of diversity.



So I raise the question here first, because I think everyone here is of the mind that we should do something. I do think this should be a sentiment and action that comes from W3M, the AB, AC, and the members as a whole, but I hope we can come up with a starting point for everyone to build off of.



What should W3C do about the lack of diversity in our working groups and F2F meetings?

How can we as an organization support community members who are limited in participation by factors like economics, family situation, geography?

What actions should we take to recruit more members from diverse backgrounds and retain them once they are here?



I propose we have a call soon to discuss these matters, but I will leave that judgement to the chairs. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Wendy Reid
Get Outlook for iOS<https://aka.ms/o0ukef>

--

Judy Brewer

Director, Web Accessibility Initiative

at the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C)

105 Broadway, Room 7-128, MIT/CSAIL

Cambridge MA 02142 USA

www.w3.org/WAI/<http://www.w3.org/WAI/>