13:44:42 <RRSAgent> RRSAgent has joined #pwe
13:44:47 <RRSAgent> logging to https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-pwe-irc
13:44:57 <tzviya> Meeting: PWE
13:45:01 <tzviya> Chair: Tzviya, Wendy
13:45:09 <tzviya> Date: 2024-04-02
13:58:43 <tzviya> zakim, start the meeting
13:58:43 <Zakim> RRSAgent, make logs Public
13:58:45 <Zakim> Meeting: Positive Work Environment CG
14:02:39 <tzviya> Topic: Awards
14:02:56 <tzviya> Elena: I like the idea of celebrating excellence in standards.
14:04:00 <tzviya> ... I made a presentation https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1IqY2NT28_xhtUKOUaAxxz07LsDJn1lDE/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=102015853974655958701&rtpof=true&sd=true
14:04:01 <cwilso> present+
14:04:15 <tzviya> present+ Tzviya, Sheila, Elena, wendyreid
14:05:52 <tzviya> Elena: What are goals?
14:06:08 <tzviya> wendyreid: It's to celebrate and unite the community
14:06:24 <cwilso> longstanding discussion in AB: https://github.com/w3c/AB-memberonly/issues/53
14:06:42 <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
14:07:25 <tzviya> q?
14:08:42 <cwilso> q+
14:09:11 <wendyreid> ack cwilso
14:09:13 <cwilso> q-
14:09:48 <tzviya> Elena: slide 2: recommendation of categories
14:10:48 <cwilso> q+
14:11:00 <tzviya> ack cw
14:11:06 <tzviya> q+
14:13:01 <tzviya> ack me
14:13:02 <wendyreid> ack tzviya
14:16:15 <wendyreid> q+
14:16:25 <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
14:16:53 <cwilso> q+
14:17:03 <tzviya> ... If there as specific list of awards and a committee, then have a list of specific awards
14:17:23 <Ralph> [Ralph arrives]
14:17:25 <Ralph> present+
14:17:30 <tzviya> tzviya: I think there might be too many awards, and we need to think through the naming
14:17:32 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:18:33 <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
14:19:05 <tzviya> ...on the individual level, we could do editor, contributor, chaie
14:19:13 <tzviya> scribe+
14:19:20 <tzviya> +1 to wendyreid
14:19:33 <Ralph> scribe+
14:19:53 <tzviya> ack cw
14:20:08 <Ralph> Wendy: perhaps "XXX of the year"; Inclusion Leader, ...
14:20:28 <Ralph> Chris: Google has "peer bonuses", a small monetary gift, and Kudos
14:20:41 <Ralph> ... I appreciate the kudos more
14:20:58 <Ralph> ... the gifter writes something explaining what the recipient is being thanked for
14:21:00 <tzviya> +1 to cwilso
14:21:13 <Ralph> ... the important part is recognizing individuals for great work they did
14:21:14 <sheila> sheila has joined #pwe
14:21:30 <Ralph> ... perhaps "Unsung Hero" rather than specific categories
14:21:48 <Ralph> ... if we make this a selection process I worry about it becoming too political
14:22:00 <Ralph> ... the important part is recognizing contributions
14:22:01 <tzviya> q?
14:22:10 <Ralph> Tzviya: I really agree with what Chris said
14:22:28 <Ralph> ... perhaps we restrict this [recognition] to individuals and not groups?
14:23:04 <Ralph> ... what do people think about "Heroes"?  Call for nominations?
14:23:13 <Ralph> ... I think we'd make the awards at TPAC
14:23:22 <Ralph> ... recognition of excellence
14:23:42 <Ralph> ... what feels really good is what people say, not the physical token
14:24:04 <Ralph> Wendy: if 20 people are nominated, the first slide lists them all and what was said about them
14:24:17 <Ralph> ... then of those, here are those that stand out
14:24:26 <Ralph> ... the recognition of being nominated feels good
14:25:07 <Ralph> Elena: I have mixed feelings but like the idea of one "Unsung Hero" category
14:25:13 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:25:24 <JenStrickland> Present+
14:25:52 <Ralph> ... on nomination process, we need to consider several things:
14:26:01 <Ralph> ... * who is eligible to be nominated
14:26:06 <cwilso> q?
14:26:07 <Ralph> ... * who can make nominations
14:26:17 <Ralph> ... my suggestion is to make it open to everyone
14:26:40 <JenStrickland> JenStrickland has joined #pwe
14:26:44 <Ralph> ... * the method to choose who receives the award
14:26:57 <Ralph> ... we will have to design ballots
14:27:26 <Ralph> ... with the name of the nominator, the nominee, and the text of the nomination (with a word limit)
14:27:39 <Ralph> ... decide how we take submissions
14:28:13 <Ralph> ... 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
14:28:31 <Ralph> ... the goal is to collect as many responses as possible to have a large pool of people to compare
14:28:37 <Ralph> ... to see who stand out
14:28:47 <sheila> q+
14:29:12 <Ralph> Wendy: I would want peer nominated
14:29:23 <sheila> +1, especially if we're reading out the nominations
14:29:35 <Ralph> ... one goal is to recognize people who may not recognize their own contributions; they may not think about the impact they are having
14:29:36 <cwilso> +1  to no self nomination.  (you can nominate anyone but yourself.  :) )
14:29:43 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:29:44 <Ralph> ... it takes someone else to point out the value of their contributions
14:30:03 <tzviya> +1 to peer nominations
14:30:12 <Ralph> Sheila: +1; I think peer nomination rather than self-nomination
14:30:21 <Ralph> ... I agree with the idea of keeping it very open
14:31:10 <JenStrickland> Q+
14:31:18 <Ralph> Elena: on self-nominations: one trick I've seen done is that people don't nominate themselves as the selection committee will notice
14:31:51 <Ralph> ... but if people know there are lots of nominations that encourages people to add their own
14:32:18 <tzviya> ack jen
14:32:19 <Ralph> ... realistically, if all nominations are reviewed by a selection committee that committee takes care of self-nominations
14:32:47 <Ralph> Jen: allowing self-nominations is critical for equity, inclusion, and diversity of nominations
14:32:59 <Ralph> ... people tend to nominate others who match a traditional profile
14:33:21 <Ralph> ... people who don't match that profile often don't get nominated and need to be able to nominate themselves to get a chance
14:33:34 <Ralph> ... we should level the playing field for equity
14:33:38 <cwilso> q+
14:33:50 <Ralph> ... it's important to consider unstated assumptions about what is normal and what is right
14:34:09 <Ralph> ... think about what we might not be considering: people from other cultures, other abilities, non-traditional backgrounds
14:34:27 <cwilso> +1 to broadening recognition
14:34:30 <Ralph> ... we need to be thinking more broadly and recognize people who are different, for the health of the organization
14:34:49 <Ralph> ... we tend to stick to academia and industry to-date; there's a lot more out there
14:35:01 <Ralph> ... we need to be open to more diversity
14:35:36 <sheila> q+
14:35:38 <Ralph> Chris: I have a very specific experience; Google's promotion process is self-nomination
14:36:03 <Ralph> ... that has been bad for equity as some people won't put themselves forward for promotion
14:36:08 <Ralph> ... e.g. women
14:36:10 <tzviya> ack cwilso
14:36:19 <Ralph> ... recognizing diverse contributions should be allowed
14:36:26 <JenStrickland> q+
14:36:29 <Ralph> ... but I worry if self-nomination becomes the norm
14:36:38 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:36:47 <Ralph> Sheila: I appreciate what Jen is saying and agree there is bias in peer nomination
14:37:05 <Ralph> ... but there's a lot of research in what Chris said: self-nominations tend to be more skewed
14:37:10 <wendyreid> q+
14:37:22 <Ralph> ... people who are accustomed to getting recognition self-nominate
14:37:36 <Ralph> ... from my perspective, including self-nomination does not necessarily improve equity
14:38:01 <Ralph> ... I think there's a way to do this by including categories such as "unsung hero" or values-aligned ones
14:38:11 <Ralph> ... that helps people question why they are always thinking of the same people
14:38:30 <Ralph> ... I think it more powerful to use peer nomination but include categories that encourage people to think out of the box
14:38:33 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:38:42 <Ralph> ... same goals as Jen described but different methods
14:38:54 <Ralph> Jen: I agree with what both Chris and Sheila said
14:39:18 <Ralph> ... how do we get those from different backgrounds to get past their own bias that they may be less deserving?
14:39:21 <tzviya> q+ to ask if we can resolve this in the voting/selection
14:39:38 <Ralph> ... I've seen that people who are nominated are always those who fit a profile
14:40:30 <Ralph> ... some people contribute important discussions but in a way that others don't always appreciate
14:40:50 <Ralph> ... can we say "think critically about who you nominate; people who have caused you to think differently"
14:41:03 <Ralph> ... people who helped the work explore directions the group might not have thought of
14:41:37 <Ralph> ... some of the assumptions worry me; we have to be thoughtful -- I don't want nominations to be just the "usual culprits"
14:42:13 <tzviya> ack wendyreid
14:42:34 <Ralph> Wendy: I am swayed; I now think self-nominations are fine and we should accept them
14:42:55 <Ralph> ... people don't get awarded simply because they got lots of nominations or a very long nomination
14:43:29 <Ralph> ... it is possible to tell the difference behind self-nominations
14:43:54 <Ralph> ... there may be someone who points out really good work they have done and might not be nominated by someone else
14:44:22 <Ralph> Sheila: so would we read out the names of everyone who is nominated or only those who were peer nominated?
14:45:04 <Ralph> 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
14:45:20 <tzviya> ack me
14:45:20 <Zakim> tzviya, you wanted to ask if we can resolve this in the voting/selection
14:45:23 <Ralph> ... strip out details that would help people guess who made the nomination
14:45:46 <Ralph> Tzviya: I think it's fine to include self-nominations, may not need to be explicit; just make sure the form allows it
14:45:49 <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.
14:46:05 <tzviya> ack ra
14:46:27 <cwilso> +1
14:46:53 <Ralph> Ralph: to me the most important part is that the nomination state what made the nominee stand out
14:47:16 <Ralph> ... if the selection committee agrees that was a stand-out contribution, it's OK if it was a self-nomination
14:47:33 <Ralph> Elena: on voting criteria
14:47:47 <Ralph> ... what I'm presenting is the standard of how companies make awards
14:48:07 <Ralph> ... 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
14:48:17 <Ralph> ... ultimately we want representation from different groups
14:48:21 <Ralph> ... 5 or 6 people is ideal
14:48:29 <Ralph> ... getting their commitment
14:48:49 <Ralph> ... three criteria to rate each nominee
14:49:01 <Ralph> ... for instance: relevance to web standards
14:49:38 <Ralph> ... impact; if the focus is on individual recognition then impact on peers as opposed to impact on promoting W3C or standards
14:50:00 <Ralph> ... innovation; or some third criteria
14:50:17 <Ralph> ... ask the jury to look at all the statements, limited to a specific size
14:50:48 <Ralph> ... the jury looks through all the submissions, looks at the numbers, and sees who has the top number in each category
14:50:57 <Ralph> ... or select all the nominees above a threshold
14:51:01 <Ralph> ... e.g. the top 10
14:51:09 <Ralph> ... on prizes
14:51:31 <Ralph> ... having something physical is nice because it's a symbol; a token
14:51:44 <Ralph> ... a framed certificate is a nice award
14:51:54 <JenStrickland> Is Innovation bolder as the primary category ? Are leadership and technical excellence at the same level or sub-categories?
14:52:20 <Ralph> ... making a shout-out; e.g. a big post or email calling out all the winners and then individual shout-outs
14:52:43 <Ralph> ... and a meaningful handshake from a notable figure within W3C
14:52:53 <Ralph> ... makes the recipient feel they were really thought about
14:53:11 <Ralph> ... and that they are valued and appreciated, not only by their peers but also a notable person
14:53:42 <tzviya> q+
14:53:47 <Ralph> ... on next steps: I suggest one person be responsible for specific tasks
14:54:00 <Ralph> ... reaching out to jury candidates
14:54:05 <Ralph> ... designing the nomination form
14:54:09 <Ralph> ... promotion
14:54:15 <Ralph> ... candidate selection
14:54:20 <Ralph> ... announcement at TPAC
14:54:22 <tzviya> ack me
14:54:25 <Ralph> Tzviya: thank Elena
14:54:29 <Ralph> ... many details to work out
14:54:42 <Ralph> ... we should coordinate with Comm
14:55:06 <Ralph> ... if you're able to incorporate notes from this meeting into your slides then send to Comm, that would be good
14:55:29 <Ralph> ... we don't have time in this meeting to find consensus on number of awards, whether we award groups or individuals
14:55:35 <Ralph> ... can we discuss that asynchronously?
14:55:43 <Ralph> Wendy: I agree; we can discuss finer details
14:56:01 <Ralph> ... I think there is value in group awards but we have to be careful that the categories are not contentious
14:56:24 <Ralph> ... e.g. giving credit for creating a positive work environment
14:56:55 <Ralph> ... maybe if all the chairs of a particular group were nominated as individuals, that would signal the group did something special
14:57:16 <Ralph> ... it's easier to award individuals in some of the categories we have discussed
14:57:26 <Ralph> Tzviya: it would be helpful if we made some recommendations for jury members
14:57:36 <Ralph> ... and make sure that this is as equitable as possible
14:57:38 <JenStrickland> Q+
14:58:15 <Ralph> Elena: why don't we look at the tasks [on my slide 7] and take volunteers for each task
14:58:28 <Ralph> ... e.g. I have experience with prize logistics and would be happy to take that one
14:58:59 <Ralph> ... someone else could take the task of coming up with the final category or categories
14:59:02 <tzviya> ack JenStrickland
14:59:07 <Ralph> Tzviya: that's a great approach
14:59:11 <sheila> q+
14:59:29 <tzviya> ack sheila
14:59:32 <Ralph> Jen: I think we should include a definition of what "equity" is; people don't understand the difference between equity and equality
14:59:45 <Ralph> Sheila: I'd be happy to propose categories and open that to discussion
14:59:58 <Ralph> ... using the notes from this meeting, of course
15:00:07 <Ralph> Wendy: use the PWE GitHub repo
15:00:23 <JenStrickland> since my work is blocking IRC I can send that definition via email or put in a GitHub comment.
15:00:32 <Ralph> Sheila: is there a difference between the names of the categories and the name of the award?
15:00:44 <Ralph> Elena: it's what people see on the item
15:01:00 <Ralph> Tzviya: I'll give some thought to the jury assembly
15:02:22 <Ralph> [adjourned]
15:02:27 <Ralph> zakim, end meeting
15:02:27 <Zakim> As of this point the attendees have been cwilso, Tzviya, Sheila, Elena, wendyreid, Ralph, JenStrickland
15:02:29 <Zakim> RRSAgent, please draft minutes v2
15:02:30 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-pwe-minutes.html Zakim
15:02:37 <Zakim> I am happy to have been of service, Ralph; please remember to excuse RRSAgent.  Goodbye
15:02:37 <Zakim> Zakim has left #pwe
15:05:36 <Ralph> agenda: https://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-pwe/2024Mar/0006.html
15:06:29 <RRSAgent> I have made the request to generate https://www.w3.org/2024/04/02-pwe-minutes.html Ralph
18:02:13 <Jem> Jem has joined #pwe