Meeting minutes
Inclusion fund
<Ralph> previous 28 March
wendy: Announcment is going out soon. Last year we had two programs, but we didn't clarify the diff well. Lots of confusion and people applying for both. Not well defined, and not a huge amount of money.
… Discussed options. Wrote up a proposal. Option 1: INclude felllowship as part of the fund (for peopel who are not already part of W3C), and say if you're already a member you can use the incl fund to allow you to attend TPAC.
… Funding structure would stay the same.
… Option 2: Keep fellowship as a separate program, better define it.
<Ralph> 28 March discussion of Inclusion fund
wendy: And not have a funding limit.
David: what's important is to make it easy for applicants
… the categories can be determined by the process and not require the applicant to figure that out
sheila: Agree it makes sense to haave a single application process. Good to better define the diff between them.
TPAC 2022 Inclusion Fund and Honorarium
chris: What's the goal of the fellowship program?
A Honorarium of US$ 500 will be awarded to 3-5 TPAC fellows to support those members of TPAC who may not have the wider support from their organisation to dedicate to W3C goals. The Honorarium compensates work done outside of their work to contribute to TPAC in a meaningful way. Contributions can be on any topic that is appropriate for TPAC, and don’t specifically have to focus on diversity.
-- https://
wendy: Goal was to support people who could make a contrib to W3C, but not yet doing so. E.g., run a break-out session, or give a presentation in your expertise.
… Failed to make it clear that you didn't have to be a member. But we capped the funding amount to $500, whiwh was not enough to get people to vancouver.
… Should remove the funding limit becuase it adds more restriction than intended.
ralph: Tricky to distinguish how the committtee might choose which award and how much. If expand last year's examples, I might conclude that the incl fund is to remove barriers to participation (e.g., child care, better webcam, travel); and the honorarium is for specific things the particpatn might do if participating.
… So the first is a prereq for the next. Someone might well need both. Agree we should let the committee decide how to allocate funds, rather than asking the applicant to choose.
annette: Agree. Also one way to propose if you want to make some distinction. Might define some tiering. Eg, someone proposing breakouts might get more, but still use the same appl form.
wendy: Hearing that we should combine the two -- simplify the appl process -- one flow, ask questions about what you might contrib, tell us more about it. That would allow the committee to assess and prioritize candidates.
ralph: Want to twist sheila's arm to expand on her thought.
sheila: Having the committee decide which funds makes sense. I've been swayed. Don't want to limit options. People more apt to engage if there are multiple options. Generlally want to give people multiple ways to engage.
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to ask for Sheila's further thoughts and to
ralph: Can we just call it the inclusion fund, and say that there's a variety of ways they might be considered.
sheila: Makes sense.
Ralph: combine the two lists of examples from https://
wendy: If we can assess level of particpation, it helps us lean more in one direction or another.
sheila: That makes sense as long as they know that if they say no to some questions, they can still get funding.
wendy: We haven't yet used the fund fully. We want to use the money for this purpose.
jemma: Did we discuss inclusion fund as first agenda item? Any action for me? Timeline?
wendy: working w Amy and Angell on communications plan. Were stiumbling on what to do about the fellowship fund.
… Happening this month.
jemma: Last year I was called into the selection committee 2 weeks prior. If I become another, I want a heads up -- enough timeline for people to help.
jen: Since I'll be applying, should I not be here now?
wendy: No, it's ok.
AGREED: Merge to a single inclusion fund.
ralph: Thanks for that question. You made your disclosure public, but in general we should be cautious about disclosing
dbooth: Do we have a policy about that?
ralph: Suggest a policy to not disclose.
wendy: Favor a non-disclosure policy?
+1
<sheila> +1
<annette_g> +1
jemma: Would this mean we don't disclose who was selected?
jemma: We need to continue to get funds. What's the goal of non-disclosure?
wendy: In past years, we've not announced to protect privacy.
… But it's great to get testimonials of how great the program was.
<JenStrickland> Wait! I q'd to ask a question.
jemma: I'm not advocating opening names to the public.
jemma: I'm neither for nor against disclosure.
jen: Was checking in. Agree there shouldn't be an announcment of the awardees. But someone like me, I want to make sure it's okay for me to talk about it. Want to encourage conversation about inclusion.
<Jem> yes. I am trying to understand the goal of non-disclosure as one who disclose receiving the award.
jen: Having that funding helps me a lot, and want to talke to people who think they cannot apply for funding.
<Jem> s/non-disclosure as one who disclose receiving the award. /non-disclosure as the one who disclosed receiving the award in the past/
jen: Overheard a chair saying that I embellish my story, and I don't. It's upsetting because they don't know what they don't know.
… We're i n a transitoin time where new voices are being heard. People didn't know what they didn't know. people like me feel "forgotten".
… People say "we didn't forget about you, we didn't know about you", and that's no better.
… Want to be sure it's okay for awardees to say we got it.
David: another possible approach: disclose the names but not the reasons
… transparency is important, especially when money is involved
<Jem> +1 for transparency
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to make a proposal
jemma: Transparency is a good word.
ralph: Jen, thanks for your comments. i always learn from them.
<JenStrickland> I would recommend not disclosing the names.
annette: Re releasing names biut not reasons. Could still be a bit of a privacy violation, because people could make assuptions about the reasons.
<Zakim> Ralph, you wanted to make a proposal
Propose: W3C will announce the number of Inclusion Fund recipients but, respecting privacy, will not announce their identities. The recipients are free to share as much or as little about their award as they wish.
<wendyreid> +1
<annette_g> +1
<Jem> +1
<sheila> I would replace "identities" with "names or identifying information"
dbooth: suggested friendly amendment: also disclose the amounts awarded.
<JenStrickland> +1
<sheila> since "identities" could mean a couple different things here
<cwilso> +1
<JenStrickland> Please do not release the amounts of the awards.
<JenStrickland> Please do not release the names or reasons for the awards.
<sheila> +1 (pending my suggested word change)
ralph: I would not agree to David's amendment.
<JenStrickland> Most people are not like me.
Ralph: I can accept Sheila's amendment: s/identities/names or identifying information/
<annette_g> +1 to Sheila's amendment
wendy: Releasing the amount would raise questions of why one person got more, than others.
<Jem> +1 to Sheila
<JenStrickland> +1 to Sheila's amendment
<wendyreid> +1 to sheila
<JenStrickland> Sheila typed her own amendment at 10:38.
Propose: W3C will announce the number of Inclusion Fund recipients but, respecting privacy, will not announce their names or identifying information. The recipients are free to share as much or as little about their award as they wish.
<JenStrickland> +1
<annette_g> +1
+1
<wendyreid> +1
<cwilso> +1
<Jem> +1
<Ralph> s/not agree to that amendment/not agree to releasing specific amounts
AGREED: W3C will announce the number of Inclusion Fund recipients but, respecting privacy, will not announce their names or identifying information. The recipients are free to share as much or as little about their award as they wish.
jen: Important not to release the names, because that way everyone at TPAC is on equal footing. Nobody knows who is from a marginalize position. Once you get at TPAC and someone is at google, or similar, those things have meaning. Some people will resent people who got funding to come.
… Most people are not malicious, they need to learn.
… Thanks for the decision.
<wendyreid> https://
<sheila> I unfortunately have to jump off. thanks all!
<wendyreid> w3c/
Safety vs comfort PR
wendy: Only got one typo commment.
dbooth: looks good to me.
<cwilso> +1
wendy: okay to merge?
+1
<annette_g> +1
AGREED: okay to merge
PR 237 and 238
<wendyreid> w3c/
<wendyreid> w3c/
dbooth: I've reached the opinion that we are best served by not trying to define "patronizing language"
… include in the list to be avoided but there's too much subtlety involved to define it
dbooth; But we should still say "dont' do it"
jemma: Either way. I'm having a hard time understnading what it is.
ralph: Repect David's caution, but in an international community, we need to help people understand.
<Zakim> dbooth, you wanted to say I'm also okay with including examples, but the exxamples need to be carefully chosen.
dbooth: What about adding it to the glossary as another solution?
jen: That defn from wendy sounds great. Need to assume good intent on first offense, but also need "three strikes and you're out". Impact must be understood and considered. Offenders need to understnad the damage they're causing.
ralph: Tricky to give definitions, but explaining what we mean is important. Being a patron is a positive thing, biut being patronizing is not.
<Jem> w3c/
ralph: for me, Wording in 237 works much better than the wording in 238.
<Jem> w3c/
ralph: Is that location in the doc the best place? Support addoptiong 237.
<Ralph> s/in 232/in 237/
<cwilso> +1 to Ralph'
wendy: Agree we can add patronizing to the glossary.
<wendyreid> Proposed: Merge 237, close 238
<Ralph> +1 to merge 237 and close 238
wendy: Propose merging 237 and close 238
-1
<JenStrickland> +1
<annette_g> +1
jemma: IDK yet. Cannot vote.
David: 237 still has a few specific issues that I raised and haven't seen addressed
… I'm not comfortable with 237
… I proposed 238 to try to address those issues
… e.g. the "grandmother" example isn't clear to me why that is offensive
… is it that it uses gender, uses age, maybe both?
… it should be clear about that and it should be easy to clarify; for example, if the issue is that it uses gender we can say that it is sexist
<annette_g> sexist and ageist
David: the other thing is that I'm not comfortable with discouraging people to define their jargon
… anything that discourages people from defining their jargon is a mistake
… I've not seen either of these points adequately addressed
wendy: can further clarify the example.
… IDK how we can clarify the other issue.
wendy: We'll leave these open for next week.
ADJOURNED