Hi! Today in the DEI Working Group, we discussed adding the following metrics to the Event Badge Application:
- Event Accessibility (released metric)
- Public Health and Safety (soon to be released metric)
- Event Location Inclusivity (soon to be released metric)
We are also considering adding a requirement for folks to attend to the following 3 metrics in order to achieve the Gold Badge. In other words, they could have everything else checked off, but if they aren’t attending to these 3, they can only achieve a Silver Badge.
These are the 3:
- Code of Conduct
- Event Accessibility
- Public Health and Safety
What do you all think?
I don’t have any fundamental problems with including these. I might suggest, just from a process perspective that we only do CoC and one of the new metrics as a requirement. We could do the second new metric in the next release as a requirement. Both could be included now, but just one mandatory at a time.
This will also change how we are currently awarding badges. Right now, it is based on a percentage only. This would now require a percentage and a yes/no for one metric.
@Germonprez seems like as sensible path forward, though I’d love to hear what your thinking is in suggesting an incremental approach for adding metrics that are required in order to achieve the Gold Badge. Being newer to this work I don’t have a well formed opinion one way or the other.
Sure! It’s partly related to our unofficial CHAOSS motto of ‘helping people move off zero’. The premise of this is that sometimes giving people too much to focus on at once can be overwhelming, leading to disinterest in metrics-things. I just don’t want to ask too much at in one step when we could split it into two steps.
In this case, we currently ask for several things from event organizers and have been asking for similar things for a while now. I believe there is great (and clear) communication from all. These additions will change what we ask for and I just lean towards ensuring clarity in each iteration as the badging initiative grows.
Maybe I’m overthinking things and totally fine to be told so
I think since we aren’t clear about what it will take to change the bot to have a yes/no check for any metrics, maybe we add this requirement in later. I’d rather not wait to add these new metrics into the application process.
Maybe adding a yes/no check to the bot might be a good project for the She Code Africa mentees. What do you think @ruth_ikegah?
Thank you @Germonprez, that makes sense to me! Helpful to understand one of the organizing philosophies here. And yeah, @Elizabeth, I wouldn’t want to block the new release on building the infra to support that new requirement. I do feel a sense of urgency to get these out there.
Thanks for your input @Germonprez and @joshsimmons! I’m going to email our previous event applicants and let them know that we will be adding new metrics to the checklist first, then in a month or two, we will be requiring certain metrics for a Gold Badge (which gives us time to build this into our bot). I will also let them know about the new group for event organizers
This sounds good. I think the public health component is interesting and I will be watching the evolution of those practices.
Since we’re participating in this year’s opensource program with SCA, I think it’s a good idea to have the mentees work on this
@Elizabeth can this thread be closed? I believe we have decided on three new metrics for the Gold Badge.
@Germonprez I’m curious about your comments to close threads. In most past forums I’ve participated in, we usually keep all of the threads open forever in case someone wants to chime in later. I think for decision-making threads like this one, posting a message that makes it clear that the decision has been made and what the decision is might be useful, especially for longer threads, but I wouldn’t necessarily want to prevent people from continuing to ask questions or maybe post feedback about how it’s working at some point in the future.
I would typically only close a thread if it becomes disruptive in some way because of a controversial topic, maybe.
No problem on keeping them open. My comment to close threads was just based in managing the volume of information and channels in CHAOSS. As examples, checking out Slack channels to see if they are being used or just sort of sitting there. Closing down our email lists (largely in favor of Discourse – so not totally the same). It really just stems from my own hope to not lose discussions that may be happening in a variety of channels and to not overwhelm folks. This said, I’m totally fine keeping threads open.