Skip to content

26/07/31 - 31st July 2026

Agenda

  1. Review of Actions
  2. Durham HPC Days blog post
  3. Opinions on public recognition of members
  4. Updates from Mini Working Groups
  5. Any other business
  6. Mini working group breakouts

Minutes

Actions

New

Ongoing

  • Encouraging members to ask questions about the co-Chair role and requirements.
  • Share relevant links or examples on UKRI or institutional guidance relating to hidden participation costs

Closed

  • Chair to circulate a form to all members to gather views on public membership, authorship and representation
  • Request to review Topic-Based Guides criteria and risk assessment documents

Durham HPC Days

Blog post now available, including session recording, slides and summary of discussions:

We Know What Needs to Change, So Why Isn’t It Happening?

Opinions on public recognition of members

Chair circulated a form to gather views on whether CAKE working group members should be publicly listed, and how authorship of outputs should be attributed.

Current situation:

  • CAKE and CoSeC are publicly associated.
  • Members are internally listed in the CAKE Google Drive
  • Public minutes on CAKEbox are anonymous
  • External representation (i.e. events/talks/blogs) is optional and up to individuals to put their name to.

Discussion summary:

As outputs (e.g., the Community Outreach survey) start to be released from this group, members may want to share or reference them on personal channels (e.g. LinkedIn, blogs, talks). This is a good time to clarify/revisit how authorship and contribution are handled publicly.

Participation in this group is voluntary and an additional responsibility on top of already very busy workloads. Public recognition of contributions may therefore be valuable for career development, visibility of impact, and evidence of wider community engagement. However, some members may prefer not to be publicly named or associated due to safety concerns or concerns around their opinion being taken as representative of their institution/community.

So, we need to find a balance that works for everyone.

Proposal:
Introduce an opt-in public list of working group members on CAKEbox, where individuals can choose how they are shown, for example:

  • Name
  • Name + affiliation
  • Name + communities involved in/representing

People who don’t opt in won’t be listed.

Suggest that this should be accompanied with a disclaimer: “This list only includes members who have opted in to be named. Some members are not listed. Individuals participate in a personal capacity and do not necessarily represent their affiliated organisations or communities, nor do they necessarily align with the views expressed in the outputs of this group.”

Other public contributions, including social media posts, event participation or authorship, will be up to individuals to opt-in.

Survey Outcome

  • Do you support having an opt-in public list of members: 83.3% yes, 11.1% Unsure, 5.6% No
  • Do you support allowing members to choose how they are listed? (e.g. name only, name + affiliation, name + communities represented, other): 72.2% yes, 11.1% Unsure, 16.7% No.
  • Comments:
    • When do you represent a community? Suggested “interested in xxx community” as an alternative phrase
    • Should be consistent “if there is feeling from some members that affiliation should not be included then it should not be included for anyone”
  • All were happy with the disclaimer, with minor edits
  • Concerns:
    • Be wary of pressure to be named or questions around why one or two people are not keen to be named.
    • If we release something controversial, does this reflect back on the named people and not on the unnamed people?
      • Could we give this as an up-front information point when asking people if they want to have their name listed so they can make an informed decision?

Additional points from meeting discussion

  • Concern that an output might not get released if we need consensus on everything
  • What if someone wants to change their mind? One list makes that easier
  • Lightest touch may be the best option for now, considering each output on a case by case basis

Outcome: Requires further discussion.

Updates from mini working groups

  • Community Outreach:

    • Awaiting ethics approval following minor changes, hope this to be ready soon
    • Proposed a timeline:
      • Early September release
      • Early October close
      • Target for CIUK or SC for results and output
    • Survey ready for wider group to review
    • Want input into advertising contacts

  • Topic-Based Guides:

    • Ready to start creating materials for CAKEbox

  • Measuring Impact:

    • Collecting interesting resources around how other organisations measure EDI and ways in which we could connect this to our activities

Any other business

  • Discussion around the impact of the perception of role on your access to resources and how this can contribute to exclusion
    • Many members of the group related to this idea.

Mini working group breakouts

No time remained, so the breakout sessions did not take place

Date of next all-hands meeting: 04/09/2026, 10am, Online via Teams

Date of next mini-working groups meeting: 21/08/2026, 10am, Online via Teams

(please contact the CAKE team for any queries about these minutes)