4 ms·

I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense that reducing the subjective "culture fit" factor reduces hiring bias. But I would also say that as someone who

I'm glad to hear that. It makes perfect sense that reducing the subjective "culture fit" factor reduces hiring bias. But I would also say that as someone who has experience at the highest levels of open source organizations and who has witnessed the extraordinary extent to which entrenched parties will fight to keep structural discrimination in place: Don't underestimate people's ability to discriminate based on identity alone, without having met in person.

wayoutthere 6y ago
Yeah, some of that behavior is constrained given the paper trail that is left when interviewers have to communicate through collaboration tools. People are on their best behavior if they know they might get caught.
- throwaway82931 6y ago
  Absolutely. At open source orgs, the internal communication channels are way worse than the public ones. People advocate for positions all the time which would negatively impact their careers if made public.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I'm not sure what you mean by "open source orgs" or why you felt you needed to create a throwaway account to leave the comment. But, in general, "internal communications channels" on open source projects are something of an anti-pattern. Certainly, private board member (or other person-to-person) communications can be necessary but what you're describing sounds like an unhealthy atmosphere in general if there's a lot of contentious backchannel comms.
    - throwaway82931 6y ago
      By "open source orgs" I mean entities such as all the non-profits which host/support open source projects. You're right about it being unhealthy, unfortunately. It might be for the best if it dies and is replaced by something else.
bigpumpkin 6y ago
I think this is especially true for large companies. Whereas a tiny startup may be given some leeway because people interact constantly and have a more defined culture, larger companies' culture are generally amorphous blobs that are more easily an excuse for bias based on common background/age/class/gender/ethnicity.

wayoutthere 6y ago

Yeah, some of that behavior is constrained given the paper trail that is left when interviewers have to communicate through collaboration tools. People are on their best behavior if they know they might get caught.

throwaway82931 6y ago
Absolutely. At open source orgs, the internal communication channels are way worse than the public ones. People advocate for positions all the time which would negatively impact their careers if made public.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I'm not sure what you mean by "open source orgs" or why you felt you needed to create a throwaway account to leave the comment. But, in general, "internal communications channels" on open source projects are something of an anti-pattern. Certainly, private board member (or other person-to-person) communications can be necessary but what you're describing sounds like an unhealthy atmosphere in general if there's a lot of contentious backchannel comms.
  - throwaway82931 6y ago
    By "open source orgs" I mean entities such as all the non-profits which host/support open source projects. You're right about it being unhealthy, unfortunately. It might be for the best if it dies and is replaced by something else.

bigpumpkin 6y ago

I think this is especially true for large companies. Whereas a tiny startup may be given some leeway because people interact constantly and have a more defined culture, larger companies' culture are generally amorphous blobs that are more easily an excuse for bias based on common background/age/class/gender/ethnicity.