As we are in the midst of the process of working on new commitments, I thought it is a good time to bring this topic up. I believe that we should have a lens throughout all of our commitments on DEI, as well as a dedicated commitment to the topic.
The government of Canada used the Gender based analysis plus (GBA+) model to audit their 2018-2020 NAP around DEI topics, I think we should follow their footsteps.
So what is our plan around this going forward? Any other models we should use?
Just to say that I massively agree that diversity should be integral to all of the commitments made. On a dedicated commitment we’ve been trying for a while to get section 106 of the Equality Act enacted, which would put a duty on parties to collect and publish information about their candidates. As we’ve recently seen in the slew of May elections it’s very hard to monitor the progress (or lack of) on diversity without specific data being published.
More than happy to work with others on this going forward. I don’t have a fixed view on a model myself.
I agree - OGP Open Heroines work is also helpful here, but it issue isn’t just gender, the aim is surely to look at intersectionality and inclusion in the round
I realised I have not made it clear, so apologies. While GBA+ has the word gender in it, the analysis looks at different intersections as well, which is why they added the + sign.
As an Open Heroine, I agree that DEI can not look at gender alone.
This morning’s algorithmic transparency meeting did not explicitly look at things through a DEI lens, but it was certainly a relevant lens for discussions both on language about “the public” (rather than recognising the “many publics”) and on the role of devolution.
I will raise this as an agenda item at the next working group meeting & work from there on in