Meeting minutes
<tzviya> Date: 2024-04-02
Awards
<tzviya> Elena: I like the idea of celebrating excellence in standards.
<tzviya> ... I made a presentation https://
<tzviya> Elena: What are goals?
<tzviya> wendyreid: It's to celebrate and unite the community
<cwilso> longstanding discussion in AB: w3c/
<tzviya> ...we talk a lot about burnout. This work can often feel thankless and like it's not recognized. This is a small way to give recognition
<tzviya> Elena: slide 2: recommendation of categories
<tzviya> sheila: How many and which awards may come down to what mechanism we use for selection. If we have nominations and a selection committee, then it might be ok to have such a fine-grained mechanism
<tzviya> ... If there as specific list of awards and a committee, then have a list of specific awards
[Ralph arrives]
<tzviya> tzviya: I think there might be too many awards, and we need to think through the naming
<tzviya> wendyreid: I agree with a lot of this. It's hard to see who is the Most Innovative. At kobo, there are are awards for values - like team players
<tzviya> ...on the individual level, we could do editor, contributor, chaie
+1 to wendyreid
Wendy: perhaps "XXX of the year"; Inclusion Leader, ...
Chris: Google has "peer bonuses", a small monetary gift, and Kudos
… I appreciate the kudos more
… the gifter writes something explaining what the recipient is being thanked for
+1 to cwilso
Chris: the important part is recognizing individuals for great work they did
… perhaps "Unsung Hero" rather than specific categories
… if we make this a selection process I worry about it becoming too political
… the important part is recognizing contributions
Tzviya: I really agree with what Chris said
… perhaps we restrict this [recognition] to individuals and not groups?
… what do people think about "Heroes"? Call for nominations?
… I think we'd make the awards at TPAC
… recognition of excellence
… what feels really good is what people say, not the physical token
Wendy: if 20 people are nominated, the first slide lists them all and what was said about them
… then of those, here are those that stand out
… the recognition of being nominated feels good
Elena: I have mixed feelings but like the idea of one "Unsung Hero" category
… on nomination process, we need to consider several things:
… * who is eligible to be nominated
… * who can make nominations
… my suggestion is to make it open to everyone
… * the method to choose who receives the award
… we will have to design ballots
… with the name of the nominator, the nominee, and the text of the nomination (with a word limit)
… decide how we take submissions
… if the goal is to open to as many as possible, including people who have never attended a meeting, we should use something like a Google form rather than on the W3C site
… the goal is to collect as many responses as possible to have a large pool of people to compare
… to see who stand out
Wendy: I would want peer nominated
<sheila> +1, especially if we're reading out the nominations
Wendy: one goal is to recognize people who may not recognize their own contributions; they may not think about the impact they are having
<cwilso> +1 to no self nomination. (you can nominate anyone but yourself. :) )
Wendy: it takes someone else to point out the value of their contributions
+1 to peer nominations
Sheila: +1; I think peer nomination rather than self-nomination
… I agree with the idea of keeping it very open
Elena: on self-nominations: one trick I've seen done is that people don't nominate themselves as the selection committee will notice
… but if people know there are lots of nominations that encourages people to add their own
… realistically, if all nominations are reviewed by a selection committee that committee takes care of self-nominations
Jen: allowing self-nominations is critical for equity, inclusion, and diversity of nominations
… people tend to nominate others who match a traditional profile
… people who don't match that profile often don't get nominated and need to be able to nominate themselves to get a chance
… we should level the playing field for equity
… it's important to consider unstated assumptions about what is normal and what is right
… think about what we might not be considering: people from other cultures, other abilities, non-traditional backgrounds
<cwilso> +1 to broadening recognition
Jen: we need to be thinking more broadly and recognize people who are different, for the health of the organization
… we tend to stick to academia and industry to-date; there's a lot more out there
… we need to be open to more diversity
Chris: I have a very specific experience; Google's promotion process is self-nomination
… that has been bad for equity as some people won't put themselves forward for promotion
… e.g. women
… recognizing diverse contributions should be allowed
… but I worry if self-nomination becomes the norm
Sheila: I appreciate what Jen is saying and agree there is bias in peer nomination
… but there's a lot of research in what Chris said: self-nominations tend to be more skewed
… people who are accustomed to getting recognition self-nominate
… from my perspective, including self-nomination does not necessarily improve equity
… I think there's a way to do this by including categories such as "unsung hero" or values-aligned ones
… that helps people question why they are always thinking of the same people
… I think it more powerful to use peer nomination but include categories that encourage people to think out of the box
… same goals as Jen described but different methods
Jen: I agree with what both Chris and Sheila said
… how do we get those from different backgrounds to get past their own bias that they may be less deserving?
… I've seen that people who are nominated are always those who fit a profile
… some people contribute important discussions but in a way that others don't always appreciate
… can we say "think critically about who you nominate; people who have caused you to think differently"
… people who helped the work explore directions the group might not have thought of
… some of the assumptions worry me; we have to be thoughtful -- I don't want nominations to be just the "usual culprits"
Wendy: I am swayed; I now think self-nominations are fine and we should accept them
… people don't get awarded simply because they got lots of nominations or a very long nomination
… it is possible to tell the difference behind self-nominations
… there may be someone who points out really good work they have done and might not be nominated by someone else
Sheila: so would we read out the names of everyone who is nominated or only those who were peer nominated?
Wendy: when we read them out we anonymize the names of the nominators and often don't say the name of the nominee until after the nomination text is read
<Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if we can resolve this in the voting/selection
Wendy: strip out details that would help people guess who made the nomination
Tzviya: I think it's fine to include self-nominations, may not need to be explicit; just make sure the form allows it
<JenStrickland> I propose they’re all read out, yet identifying details removed including anything that indicates it’s a self-nom. The criteria for judging can address the traditional problematic aspects.
<cwilso> +1
Ralph: to me the most important part is that the nomination state what made the nominee stand out
… if the selection committee agrees that was a stand-out contribution, it's OK if it was a self-nomination
Elena: on voting criteria
… what I'm presenting is the standard of how companies make awards
… we select a jury, who is on it doesn't matter too much as long as there is diversity of folk doing technical work, folks on the Team
… ultimately we want representation from different groups
… 5 or 6 people is ideal
… getting their commitment
… three criteria to rate each nominee
… for instance: relevance to web standards
… impact; if the focus is on individual recognition then impact on peers as opposed to impact on promoting W3C or standards
… innovation; or some third criteria
… ask the jury to look at all the statements, limited to a specific size
… the jury looks through all the submissions, looks at the numbers, and sees who has the top number in each category
… or select all the nominees above a threshold
… e.g. the top 10
… on prizes
… having something physical is nice because it's a symbol; a token
… a framed certificate is a nice award
<JenStrickland> Is Innovation bolder as the primary category ? Are leadership and technical excellence at the same level or sub-categories?
Elena: making a shout-out; e.g. a big post or email calling out all the winners and then individual shout-outs
… and a meaningful handshake from a notable figure within W3C
… makes the recipient feel they were really thought about
… and that they are valued and appreciated, not only by their peers but also a notable person
… on next steps: I suggest one person be responsible for specific tasks
… reaching out to jury candidates
… designing the nomination form
… promotion
… candidate selection
… announcement at TPAC
Tzviya: thank Elena
… many details to work out
… we should coordinate with Comm
… if you're able to incorporate notes from this meeting into your slides then send to Comm, that would be good
… we don't have time in this meeting to find consensus on number of awards, whether we award groups or individuals
… can we discuss that asynchronously?
Wendy: I agree; we can discuss finer details
… I think there is value in group awards but we have to be careful that the categories are not contentious
… e.g. giving credit for creating a positive work environment
… maybe if all the chairs of a particular group were nominated as individuals, that would signal the group did something special
… it's easier to award individuals in some of the categories we have discussed
Tzviya: it would be helpful if we made some recommendations for jury members
… and make sure that this is as equitable as possible
Elena: why don't we look at the tasks [on my slide 7] and take volunteers for each task
… e.g. I have experience with prize logistics and would be happy to take that one
… someone else could take the task of coming up with the final category or categories
Tzviya: that's a great approach
Jen: I think we should include a definition of what "equity" is; people don't understand the difference between equity and equality
Sheila: I'd be happy to propose categories and open that to discussion
… using the notes from this meeting, of course
Wendy: use the PWE GitHub repo
<JenStrickland> since my work is blocking IRC I can send that definition via email or put in a GitHub comment.
Sheila: is there a difference between the names of the categories and the name of the award?
Elena: it's what people see on the item
Tzviya: I'll give some thought to the jury assembly
[adjourned]