5 ms·

In a vacuum, absolutely, but the reasons stated in the post don't really seem very ruffling. One intern with no indications that technical ability is unimportan

In a vacuum, absolutely, but the reasons stated in the post don't really seem very ruffling. One intern with no indications that technical ability is unimportant, and a code of conduct that seems very inoffensive, is hardly worthy of "grave concerns that technical merit was now taking a back seat to a political agenda". It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with.

naasking 8y ago
> It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. Strange, I thought the opposite: his decision wasn't made in a vacuum. His argument may look unreasonable only if you had no idea of the wider efforts to push similar political agendas throughout the industry and open source communities, and how meritocratic concerns are pushed aside as a result. Discrimination of any kind is a fallacious argument, that someone doesn't need assistance simply because they belong to a particular group. It's just as fallacious as treating someone like a criminal simply because they belong to a particular group. I admit, I go back and forth myself on the ethics of group-specific programs, rather than a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong. I too might have no problem with Outreachy if it weren't couched in such exclusive language, and if the wider movement in the industry hadn't already been so divisive. > IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with. Open source contribution is entirely voluntary. He could walk away for literally any reason at any time. What possible reason could he have to raise a political shitstorm that would only hinder his chance at future career opportunities if he didn't believe what he wrote? It just sounds like you're looking for a narrative with ulterior motivations so you can easily dismiss his concerns.
- specialist 8y ago
  "...a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong." What does that look like? Do you know of anyone doing something like this today? My only thought is the symphony auditions where the judges cannot see the applicant (hidden by a screen). (Speaking as the temporarily self-appointed spokesmodel for the entire left: We'd love an alternative to affirmation action style mitigation steps. No one likes quotas, set asides. But right now it's the lesser evil.)
  - emaginniss 8y ago
    Texas public universities started a program to admit all high school students that ended up in the top 10% of their class. This covers white kids from the wealthy suburbs of Dallas as well as latino kids from the valley and black kids from inner Houston.
    - youdontknowtho 8y ago
      The educational system of Texas is in no way a good example of fixing privilege issues. It assumes that all students come to school on equal footing. The 10% that get automatically accepted to a state uni are going to be biased on class. Also, the idea that they can be admitted doesn't mean that they can attend uni. It's not a simple as what you describe.
  - naasking 8y ago
    > What does that look like? Do you know of anyone doing something like this today? Just speculating here, but it might be like applying for a scholarship: you have to justify why you need it more than anyone else. Some set of individuals clearly have the most need, and they should get the assistance. A double blind review process should eliminate implicit bias against gender, race, or other categories. I bet 99% of those approved would be exactly the minorities all of these targeted groups are trying to support, but there's still that 1% that might just be a "cis white male" with no support and a truly heart breaking story. Such a person has little help available at the moment. I can think of a few logistical issues with this approach, but we're just speculating here. > My only thought is the symphony auditions where the judges cannot see the applicant (hidden by a screen). Yes, that's a great example. The point is to remove possible sources of implicit bias and focus on merit. They've actually tried this at some companies, with double-blind interviews and such, but they ended up with largely the same outcomes as the status quo. One possibility is that the bias in our industry isn't as significant as is typically portrayed. Another is that the biases happen earlier and lead to minorities either being less qualified or appearing less qualified, on average. But then efforts should be focused on helping individuals in those earlier stages, like training programs or financial support to improve their qualifications. > No one likes quotas, set asides. But right now it's the lesser evil. They might be justifiable if they were actually effective, but it's literally impossible for them all to be effective. Taking gender hiring quotas as an example, only about 20% of CS grads are women, and this ratio is about the standard for CS employment across the industry. But every tech company now wants a 50/50 gender ratio. That's quite literally impossible with the current labour pool, and pushing this agenda leads to skewed incentives, fast turnover and unqualified hires. I'm not sure denying facts and scientific evidence is the lesser evil, because denying evidence simply won't fix anything. Evidence-driven efforts are great, but most I've read about don't fall in this category. Perhaps I only hear about the failures though, so that could be confirmation bias at work. Still, I would think denouncing any efforts that deny evidence would be uncontroversial, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Nadya 8y ago
>a code of conduct that seems very inoffensive The creation of a code of conduct in and of itself is offensive. If your community is bad enough that you need to remind people to not be assholes then your community already has a problem and it isn't going to be fixed by adding a CoC. It doesn't help that codes of conduct are often selectively enforced whenever it's a convenient way to expel people the "in group" doesn't like. I can't think of a time where I've seen a code of conduct actually do what it is meant to: create a better community, providing victims by providing them an escalation chain of authority to seek help from, and expelling actual assholes and people causing internal drama and a negative workplace/community. They're extremely good at creating a divisive community, driving away talented people who happen to be outside the "in group", and being used as a strictly political tool instead of a tool meant to foster a healthy community. The inclusion of a code of conduct, to me, tells me there are political busybodies that want to seek political control of a group by citing good intentions. Because what kind of asshole would be against something telling people to not act like assholes, right? You can pass anything by painting anyone against it in a bad light. Many overreaching bills pass because no politician in their right mind would be against an act like "Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" (FOSTA) or even a less polarizing title like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (PATRIOT).
- annabellish 8y ago
  ??? I don't think I've taken part in any community without a set of rules in all my years. Even 4chan has a "code of conduct". The creation of a code of conduct has not been considered offensive right up until a few years ago, where suddenly certain groups of people started objecting to communities having rules even as simple as "don't be an asshole".
  - Nadya 8y ago
    Although the distinction is minimal - there is some nuance between "Rules" and a "Code of Conduct". Not only in the kinds of things they address but also in the directions they are enforced. As one example of the difference in nuance, there is no such thing as "backseat moderation" of a Code of Conduct. In fact, "backseat moderation" is almost the point of a CoC! A CoC is meant to not only apply bidirectionally but also allow Users to moderate other Users and provide them a means to do so. Rules, on the other hand, are usually enforced against Users by Moderators in one direction and Users trying to moderate other Users "per the rules" is often frowned upon as "backseat moderation". >The creation of a code of conduct has not been considered offensive right up until a few years ago I respectfully disagree. The number of occurrences where a code of conduct is implemented only to swiftly be abused for political reasons has certainly increased in the last few years, which may have something to do with the increase of people sharing my viewpoint. But I've held this viewpoint for at least the past 15 years, so it certainly isn't a new position to hold.

naasking 8y ago

> It's possible that he's primarily talking about backroom conversations of which we are not privy to, but he doesn't mention this, and it does make the post look fairly unreasonable. Strange, I thought the opposite: his decision wasn't made in a vacuum. His argument may look unreasonable only if you had no idea of the wider efforts to push similar political agendas throughout the industry and open source communities, and how meritocratic concerns are pushed aside as a result. Discrimination of any kind is a fallacious argument, that someone doesn't need assistance simply because they belong to a particular group. It's just as fallacious as treating someone like a criminal simply because they belong to a particular group. I admit, I go back and forth myself on the ethics of group-specific programs, rather than a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong. I too might have no problem with Outreachy if it weren't couched in such exclusive language, and if the wider movement in the industry hadn't already been so divisive. > IMO, it sounds _very_ much like the guy is just tired of working on the project on technical grounds, and is making the unfounded claim that those technical grounds are being caused by political actions he doesn't agree with. Open source contribution is entirely voluntary. He could walk away for literally any reason at any time. What possible reason could he have to raise a political shitstorm that would only hinder his chance at future career opportunities if he didn't believe what he wrote? It just sounds like you're looking for a narrative with ulterior motivations so you can easily dismiss his concerns.

specialist 8y ago
"...a more inclusive approach helping underprivileged individuals without regard to any particular group to which they may belong." What does that look like? Do you know of anyone doing something like this today? My only thought is the symphony auditions where the judges cannot see the applicant (hidden by a screen). (Speaking as the temporarily self-appointed spokesmodel for the entire left: We'd love an alternative to affirmation action style mitigation steps. No one likes quotas, set asides. But right now it's the lesser evil.)
- emaginniss 8y ago
  Texas public universities started a program to admit all high school students that ended up in the top 10% of their class. This covers white kids from the wealthy suburbs of Dallas as well as latino kids from the valley and black kids from inner Houston.
  - youdontknowtho 8y ago
    The educational system of Texas is in no way a good example of fixing privilege issues. It assumes that all students come to school on equal footing. The 10% that get automatically accepted to a state uni are going to be biased on class. Also, the idea that they can be admitted doesn't mean that they can attend uni. It's not a simple as what you describe.
- naasking 8y ago
  > What does that look like? Do you know of anyone doing something like this today? Just speculating here, but it might be like applying for a scholarship: you have to justify why you need it more than anyone else. Some set of individuals clearly have the most need, and they should get the assistance. A double blind review process should eliminate implicit bias against gender, race, or other categories. I bet 99% of those approved would be exactly the minorities all of these targeted groups are trying to support, but there's still that 1% that might just be a "cis white male" with no support and a truly heart breaking story. Such a person has little help available at the moment. I can think of a few logistical issues with this approach, but we're just speculating here. > My only thought is the symphony auditions where the judges cannot see the applicant (hidden by a screen). Yes, that's a great example. The point is to remove possible sources of implicit bias and focus on merit. They've actually tried this at some companies, with double-blind interviews and such, but they ended up with largely the same outcomes as the status quo. One possibility is that the bias in our industry isn't as significant as is typically portrayed. Another is that the biases happen earlier and lead to minorities either being less qualified or appearing less qualified, on average. But then efforts should be focused on helping individuals in those earlier stages, like training programs or financial support to improve their qualifications. > No one likes quotas, set asides. But right now it's the lesser evil. They might be justifiable if they were actually effective, but it's literally impossible for them all to be effective. Taking gender hiring quotas as an example, only about 20% of CS grads are women, and this ratio is about the standard for CS employment across the industry. But every tech company now wants a 50/50 gender ratio. That's quite literally impossible with the current labour pool, and pushing this agenda leads to skewed incentives, fast turnover and unqualified hires. I'm not sure denying facts and scientific evidence is the lesser evil, because denying evidence simply won't fix anything. Evidence-driven efforts are great, but most I've read about don't fall in this category. Perhaps I only hear about the failures though, so that could be confirmation bias at work. Still, I would think denouncing any efforts that deny evidence would be uncontroversial, but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Nadya 8y ago

>a code of conduct that seems very inoffensive The creation of a code of conduct in and of itself is offensive. If your community is bad enough that you need to remind people to not be assholes then your community already has a problem and it isn't going to be fixed by adding a CoC. It doesn't help that codes of conduct are often selectively enforced whenever it's a convenient way to expel people the "in group" doesn't like. I can't think of a time where I've seen a code of conduct actually do what it is meant to: create a better community, providing victims by providing them an escalation chain of authority to seek help from, and expelling actual assholes and people causing internal drama and a negative workplace/community. They're extremely good at creating a divisive community, driving away talented people who happen to be outside the "in group", and being used as a strictly political tool instead of a tool meant to foster a healthy community. The inclusion of a code of conduct, to me, tells me there are political busybodies that want to seek political control of a group by citing good intentions. Because what kind of asshole would be against something telling people to not act like assholes, right? You can pass anything by painting anyone against it in a bad light. Many overreaching bills pass because no politician in their right mind would be against an act like "Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act" (FOSTA) or even a less polarizing title like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001" (PATRIOT).

annabellish 8y ago
??? I don't think I've taken part in any community without a set of rules in all my years. Even 4chan has a "code of conduct". The creation of a code of conduct has not been considered offensive right up until a few years ago, where suddenly certain groups of people started objecting to communities having rules even as simple as "don't be an asshole".
- Nadya 8y ago
  Although the distinction is minimal - there is some nuance between "Rules" and a "Code of Conduct". Not only in the kinds of things they address but also in the directions they are enforced. As one example of the difference in nuance, there is no such thing as "backseat moderation" of a Code of Conduct. In fact, "backseat moderation" is almost the point of a CoC! A CoC is meant to not only apply bidirectionally but also allow Users to moderate other Users and provide them a means to do so. Rules, on the other hand, are usually enforced against Users by Moderators in one direction and Users trying to moderate other Users "per the rules" is often frowned upon as "backseat moderation". >The creation of a code of conduct has not been considered offensive right up until a few years ago I respectfully disagree. The number of occurrences where a code of conduct is implemented only to swiftly be abused for political reasons has certainly increased in the last few years, which may have something to do with the increase of people sharing my viewpoint. But I've held this viewpoint for at least the past 15 years, so it certainly isn't a new position to hold.