Create nomination guidance

[LJWatson]

Could we provide resources to help Advisory Committee (AC) representatives nominate diverse participants to W3C?

For example, encourage member organizations and existing members to invite members of their companies to attend with them.

[tobie]

Could we consider making W3C members sign (on a voluntary basis) a pledge with concrete steps to improve the diversity of working groups, communicate about it, and then hold them accountable (including those that have refused to sign the pledge)?

I find it particularly disturbing that large companies sending large numbers of technologist to multiple working groups aren’t doing even a small effort to improve the diversity of their own cohorts.

This is obviously problematic because it means W3C is less diverse and thus less prone to fulfill its mission by accounting for a broad diversity of voices.

Just as importantly, it contributes to limit the opportunities for underrepresented minorities inside of those companies, by preventing them from participating in the growth and networking opportunity that standardization work offers. I wrote about this for open source participation a couple of years ago (yes, on Medium; I know; I'm sorry). Data shows correlation between participation in open source and job opportunities. I see no reason for this not to hold just as true for standards participation. We just don't have the data to show it.

[agreiner]

AC reps are a starting point. I think it's reasonable to ask them to help. I like the idea of having them talk with DEI leaders in their organization. We should also reach out to black owned tech businesses and ask them why they aren't participating We should incentivize having a rep or participants who are black with a membership discount We should incentivize black owned tech businesses to join with a membership discount.

[jeffjaffe]

For us to solve diversity at W3C, we need the involvement of Members. We cannot achieve success from a Community Group alone.

Here is some data. We have roughly 12,000 participants in W3C Community Groups (1500 in WGs). If roughly 1/3 are US, then there are 4,000 in CGs, 500 in WGs. If US population is >10% black, we are not reflecting our US stakeholders until there are more than 400 blacks in CGs and more than 50 in WGs. And that's just the US. Including all underrepresented categories globally - and the number is much more. We simply can't get there without Member involvement.

There needs to be partnership with the AC. There needs to be some sort of "W3C Member commitment to diversity". Today, I just have the concept - we need to fill in the details. Some components of a commitment could be:

• AC rep agreement to champion diversity in their selection process
• Setting some sort of targets within the Member organization
• An annual discussion between the AC rep and the Chief Diversity Officer/Chief Accessibility Officer of their organization
• Annual attendance by the AC rep to some IDCG discussions of the challenges of driving diversity

[cwilso]

I'd like to explicitly state that my thoughts here should not be associated with my employer, for better or worse.

Pragmatically, this is problematic. Although the US population is >10% black (https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219 says 13%), tech workforce is not. (E.g.: https://fortune.com/2018/06/08/tech-companies-hiring-black-workers/ says around around 3%).

If we were attempting to match the general population, we would have to encourage radically more of our diverse colleagues to participate in standards than the average - and though we might tend to think of standards participation work as a great thing, from my quarter-century experience working for large tech companies in web standards, I can tell you it is a quite frankly a career drag. (Note that I'm talking about standards participation in a large company, not open source contribution.). Companies have systems for managing performance, and they typically undervalue standards work (probably because it is not directly measurable by the company's performance systems, and because many of the potential peer reviewers do not work for your company, and do not participate in performance reviews). In short, when I think about nurturing the growth of diverse colleagues, I'd hesitate to put radically more of the load on their shoulders. (I am certainly supportive of them working in standards, and there are benefits - but I do not think it's a clear win.)

To @tobie's point, I don't think it's fair to say "large companies...aren’t doing even a small effort to improve the diversity of their own cohorts." In many cases, I think those companies do have diversity efforts - but again, putting the load of standards participation on those diverse colleagues would unfairly tax them, in my opinion.

I don't know that the W3C can solve diversity problems in its Members. Internally, of course, W3C can manage its own diversity, and of course we should be reaching out to diverse potential members, and more than anything ensure that the environment is a welcoming one for all members. (I feel, for example, that we could do much better at training new chairs - even CG chairs - to recognize the value of diversity-supporting techniques like managing a speaker queue.)

[jeffjaffe]

@cwilso - I wouldn't focus too much on whether the percentage is 10% or 3%. Let's identify a realistic target and make common cause to reach the target.

I'm more concerned with the perception that "standards" is a career drag. That sounds awful. A cynic might say that we should not drag a diverse set of participants into standards - and as a result drag down their careers. Let's figure out how to ensure that standards participation is not a career drag.

[torgo]

Discussed on IDCG :

Even something as simple as "Please consider diversity when making decisions about putting people forward to participate in W3C groups. Representation from a wider group of people, especially people from under-represented groups, is vital for creating web standards that meet the needs of the wider web community..." might be better than nothing?

@tobie suggested a pledge - I think this is also a good idea. Could be "As AC rep for my organisation, I pledge to..."

[torgo]

...on the point @cwilso made we need to turn that around. I can tell you from my organization's perspective, we don't view standards participation as a career drag - quite the opposite. Organizations that benefit from the web ecosystem need to put energy into maintaining and building that ecosystem. That means those organizations need to incentivize their own people by making this work a respected part of people's career paths.

[jeffjaffe]

Sorry I missed yesterday's discussion; scheduling snafu.

Let's try to move forward on this quickly.

I like @torgo 's simple formulation in https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18#issuecomment-745334068. If that simple formulation can get a bunch of thumbs up emoji's, then I would bring it to W3M and we can figure out the best way to get that to the membership.

Not to say that we need to stop at that alone. We should consider broader idea's such as @tobie 's pledge, and my comment above (https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18#issuecomment-704317064). But if there is support for the simple formulation, I would like to do that now, as we continue to look at stronger actions.

[chrisn]

I can 👍 the "Even something as simple as ..." part of https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18#issuecomment-745334068.

[LJWatson]

Thanks @chrisn. Does that mean you support @jeffjaffe taking Dan's suggested wods to W3M?

[chrisn]

It does, yes.

[tobie]

+1 to @torgo's proposal.

Let's make sure we get thumbs up from people who identify as members of underrepresented groups on both the language and the proposal itself before moving ahead.

[cwilso]

(Once again - I'm explicitly speaking for myself, not my employer, in this instance. That way if I say something offensive, you should blame me, not them. :)

Gah, sorry I missed the call this week. I am definitely supportive of putting a strong request for considering diversity in the guidance; what @torgo said above is great.

I also want to be explicit that I AM a cynic, and @jeffjaffe's comment was exactly what I was trying to say. That isn't to say I haven't spent most of my career trying to change this, it's just a recognition of the way things work inside the large tech companies I've worked at: it's comparatively difficult to measure the value and worth of standards work (and even more particularly, how well one does it, since there are many intangibles like relationships built across companies) with concrete metrics - when compared with the relatively simple metrics of "how many lines of code did you write, changelists reviewed, bugs fixed," etc. It isn't that standards representation is not respected; it's that it's harder to measure. I've had a few conversations with people outside my company on ways we might help that across companies; would happily have more if anyone's interested.

[LJWatson]

@jeffjaffe with support from 12 people can you take this to W3M now?

[jeffjaffe]

@jeffjaffe with support from 12 people can you take this to W3M now?

@LJWatson I believe so. I would like confirmation from @tobie since he conditioned his support (https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18#issuecomment-746539334) on "Let's make sure we get thumbs up from people who identify as members of underrepresented groups on both the language and the proposal itself before moving ahead." @tobie have we achieved this criteria in your view?

[lutgendorff]

My only thoughts on this is that from experience, if you want to improve diversity you have to be less passive. So require a % of chairs/members be from diverse backgrounds. But that needs to be supported by active recruitment and contact with those communities you are trying to reach.

I think a statement is perhaps a first step, but that needs a strategy to reach more diverse people who have the time and energy to contribute to W3C. Thinking of that as well, what needs to be put in place for people to contribute, what barriers currently exist. I remember being at a union conference where a group of women discussed the systemic issues that prevented them from fully participating in union work (basically everything about how they operated). Maybe we need to do some research to understand the barriers to participation as well.

[jeffjaffe]

@tobie ping on my above posting? I and others (e.g. @LJWatson) would like me to bring this forward - but I'm waiting to hear whether this passes the bar that you established?

[tobie]

@jeffjaffe thanks for the nudge. Unfortunately, GitHub only identifies a subset of the thumbs up, so it's hard to tell. If the next meeting was scheduled soon, I'd suggest waiting, but since that doesn't seem to be the case and given no one objected, I don't think we should block on this to ask for W3M approval.

[LJWatson]

@tobie the next meeting of the merged PWE and ID CGs will be later this month, but I don't think the intention was to make this a meeting agenda item, so agree we should move ahead with @jeffjaffe taking this to W3M.

[jeffjaffe]

Today, W3M approved the nomination guidance from https://github.com/w3c/idcg/issues/18#issuecomment-745334068.

[koalie]

We have now added the following guidance to our groups join pages (as well as individual "join" group pages, and "change/nominate" pages, and similar pages for CGs) and the calls for participation we will send: “Please consider diversity when proposing people to participate in W3C groups. Representation from a wider group of people, especially people from under-represented groups, is vital for creating web standards that meet the needs of the wider web community.”

And we expect to include similar guidance as part of upcoming AB and TAG elections via the nomination forms.

[tobie]

FYI, @kmcrayton7 shared the following feedback on the statement with me (reproduced with permission):

It may be helpful to take this moment to point out what “diversity” is because so many folx aren’t incorrect in their thinking about this. If whenever possible, I’d write it in ways that are similar to this: “diversity [recruitment]” and “inclusion [retention]”. As stand alone, for many, those words are charged without them really understand “why” they’re important for business and community.

I see why "inclusion" wasn't included in the statement; essentially while it's the job of members to improve diversity, it is the work of the W3C to create an inclusive work environment.

Nevertheless, some form of commitment to inclusion would address Kim's concerns and make the statement stronger by making us all more accountable.

[tobie]

I had a follow-up discussion with Kim. I substantially misread her comment. Her suggestion wasn't at all to mention inclusion in the statement, nor even to actually modify the statement, but to make sure to clarify the terms diversity and inclusion with (recruitment) and (retention) when we use them, as this helps foster a collective understanding of these terms.

[TzviyaSiegman]

@koalie A few recommendations to improve the message:

1. Make this imperative instead of a request. What about changing "Please consider diversity" to "Until our community is truly diverse we cannot create standards that truly reflect the global community. Choose diverse representatives... "
2. Move this to a more visible location than the Patent Policy page. Perhaps welcome packet for new members?