4 ms·

Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? I think we've all heard the

Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it.

dragonwriter 12y ago
> Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? Discussions are how you transmit ideas about proactive behaviors, you can't separate them. > I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Diversity isn't an action you can get on with, its a goal you pursue through actions. Discussion is a pretty big part of moving from a goal to something actionable. Of course, discussion can be poorly focussed (e.g., not addressing how to take action when the goal is already accepted), which is a problem, but its not a problem with discussion vs. something other than discussion, its a problem with having the wrong discussion.
saraid216 12y ago
I would probably vote for an affirmative action law on the tech industry (with the hopefully obvious qualification that I'd have to actually read it first). I would challenge you to scrape together enough people who "heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing" who would also put their money where their mouth is. > What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Then stop discussing and commit to some proactive behavior. You express a nice sentiment, but you're still all words.
- clavalle 12y ago
  I live it every day. That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on.
  - saraid216 12y ago
    > I live it every day. Really? Link the bill, please. I'd be happy to signal boost it. > That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on. I don't think you understand what "proactive" means. What you're talking about is like getting into your wheelchair everyday and expecting your legs to fix themselves as a result. > while you have already implemented the action items This is the vaguest part of your analogy. What were the action items? If you wanted to improve system performance, and your action item was splitting the engineering department into two groups, how does implementing that help meet the goal? The "meetings" and discussion happen because people disagree on what the action items should be. You feel you know better than everyone else, and that's a pretty common sentiment. A company has the luxury of splitting apart or shutting down when people can't agree on a strategy to proceed; a society does not, because that generally involves the usual suspects justifying war. Now, it turns out that society is large enough that it has millions of departments, and some of these departments have picked action items to go on. Some of these items worked; some of them were poorly implemented; some of them were well-executed and still failed. The discussion continues because people have drawn different conclusions from these events. Of course, who invited you to the meeting? Why are you here, if you're getting no value from it?
    - clavalle 12y ago
      >What were the action items? Diversify hiring and promotion. Done. Expect the same professional output from all employees. Done. Encourage different groups early in their lives to pursue tech. Done. Don't be an jerk/treat people with due respect. Done. Call out people for acting like jerks or not treating people with respect. Done. (Here 'Done' means it has been my policy and will continue to be my policy not that it is finished, just to be clear). I don't think any of these things are controversial. I look around my office and I see people from all walks of life doing their jobs, meeting their goals, progressing in their careers, and treating each other well so something must be going right. It's not complicated. If you have suggestions for more action items, I'm all ears. I am even more interested in knowing what other people have tried and what worked and what didn't. I am not saying there is no more room for improvement, there is always room for improvement, but it seems like a backward step to be stuck on the 'identify the problem' phase. I think the impedance mismatch between us is that you are advocating a top down approach through legislation and I am advocating a bottom up approach.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Fair enough, but affirmative action is a proactive behavior. How much do those points of equilibrium get moved by mere discussion? Discussions are how you transmit ideas about proactive behaviors, you can't separate them. > I think we've all heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing. What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Diversity isn't an action you can get on with, its a goal you pursue through actions. Discussion is a pretty big part of moving from a goal to something actionable. Of course, discussion can be poorly focussed (e.g., not addressing how to take action when the goal is already accepted), which is a problem, but its not a problem with discussion vs. something other than discussion, its a problem with having the wrong discussion.

saraid216 12y ago

I would probably vote for an affirmative action law on the tech industry (with the hopefully obvious qualification that I'd have to actually read it first). I would challenge you to scrape together enough people who "heard the discussion and decided diversity is a Very Good Thing" who would also put their money where their mouth is. > What I am arguing for is just getting on with it. Then stop discussing and commit to some proactive behavior. You express a nice sentiment, but you're still all words.

clavalle 12y ago
I live it every day. That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > I live it every day. Really? Link the bill, please. I'd be happy to signal boost it. > That's what I'm saying: it is like being pulled into meeting after meeting where the same thing is said over and over -- while you have already implemented the action items and you're wondering what good will come from Yet Another Meeting where the only things expressed are ones you've long since agreed to and committed yourself to acting on. I don't think you understand what "proactive" means. What you're talking about is like getting into your wheelchair everyday and expecting your legs to fix themselves as a result. > while you have already implemented the action items This is the vaguest part of your analogy. What were the action items? If you wanted to improve system performance, and your action item was splitting the engineering department into two groups, how does implementing that help meet the goal? The "meetings" and discussion happen because people disagree on what the action items should be. You feel you know better than everyone else, and that's a pretty common sentiment. A company has the luxury of splitting apart or shutting down when people can't agree on a strategy to proceed; a society does not, because that generally involves the usual suspects justifying war. Now, it turns out that society is large enough that it has millions of departments, and some of these departments have picked action items to go on. Some of these items worked; some of them were poorly implemented; some of them were well-executed and still failed. The discussion continues because people have drawn different conclusions from these events. Of course, who invited you to the meeting? Why are you here, if you're getting no value from it?
  - clavalle 12y ago
    >What were the action items? Diversify hiring and promotion. Done. Expect the same professional output from all employees. Done. Encourage different groups early in their lives to pursue tech. Done. Don't be an jerk/treat people with due respect. Done. Call out people for acting like jerks or not treating people with respect. Done. (Here 'Done' means it has been my policy and will continue to be my policy not that it is finished, just to be clear). I don't think any of these things are controversial. I look around my office and I see people from all walks of life doing their jobs, meeting their goals, progressing in their careers, and treating each other well so something must be going right. It's not complicated. If you have suggestions for more action items, I'm all ears. I am even more interested in knowing what other people have tried and what worked and what didn't. I am not saying there is no more room for improvement, there is always room for improvement, but it seems like a backward step to be stuck on the 'identify the problem' phase. I think the impedance mismatch between us is that you are advocating a top down approach through legislation and I am advocating a bottom up approach.