Add guidelines for a good conference transparency report

[ambv]

This was created in person by representatives of the PSF COC WG at the PyCon US '24 sprints:

• Tania Allard,
• KwonHan Bae,
• Jessica Greene,
• Łukasz Langa,
• Deb Nicholson, and
• Cheuk Ting Ho.

[drewbrew]

two small grammar tweaks

[jefftriplett]

My brain is tired, but my gut feeling is we should lean harder on recommending and suggesting using "should" and "would."

Releasing an initial transparency report should be part of the closing ceremony.

Something like, "We recommend including an initial transparency report as part of the closing ceremony."

It wouldn't take more than a month after the event to close the loop on the final report.

I struggled with this sentence. It feels like something we should reword, "We recommend closing the loop on final reports within one month after the event when possible." If we are being 100% transparent here, we have seen reports from conferences take as much as a year or more to fully resolve.

[jefftriplett]

Should we recommend sending these reports to our workgroup?

[trallard]

Not sure if these should be sent over to us if PSF COC WG escalation or the likes are not needed.
I suppose these could be sent to the grants WG along with the impact report as commitment to enforcing their coc. But I also don't think this must be required.

[jefftriplett]

Not sure if these should be sent over to us if PSF COC WG escalation or the likes are not needed.

I only suggest this since we track issues. On the off chance it's a pattern, it might otherwise be harder to spot, but I nod along to your point.

I suppose these could be sent to the grants WG along with the impact report as commitment to enforcing their coc. But I also don't think this must be required.

This feels like more of a board discussion than our WG's. If the board wants this, we should add it. I don't want us to pile on or give the Grants WG more work because that feels like we are overstepping.