5 ms·

> 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 me

> 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.
- saraid216 12y ago
  > I don't think any of these things are controversial They are. Especially the first one, which is just a slightly lower-level affirmative action, and a lot of people will use the second one as a justification for discriminatory treatment. The convenience of surrounding yourself with people who are not assholes doesn't magically make all the assholes in the world disappear. There are people who complain that things like Girls Who Code is discriminatory against men. [1] There are people who complain that the demand for respect is censorship against their right to self-expression. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/0/%22girls%20who%20code%22%20men https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/0/%22girls%20who%2... > I am even more interested in knowing what other people have tried and what worked and what didn't. Then stop asking people to stop discussing solutions. > but it seems like a backward step to be stuck on the 'identify the problem' phase. Except that a lot of people don't even recognize that a problem exists. Seriously, the "Maven is my girlfriend" slide hit the social media only a week ago. > 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. I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm arguing against your "everyone please stop discussing the topic" policy, because it's harmful. I expressed a willingness to vote on a bill because you expressed an interest in using that method. I mean, really. You can't tell me the action items aren't controversial when you're disagreeing with what you think my proposed action item is right now.
  - clavalle 12y ago
    >The convenience of surrounding yourself with people who are not assholes doesn't magically make all the assholes in the world disappear. No, but just like no one can replenish the all of the lost trees by themselves, no one can uproot all of the assholes of the world either. What I can do it plant a few trees on my property, encourage others to do the same until, collectively, a difference is made. If people find it harder to be assholes there will 'magically' be fewer assholes. >Then stop asking people to stop discussing solutions. That's the thing, they are not discussing solutions, they are just pointing out that there is a problem. It is a signal to noise issue at this point. >Except that a lot of people don't even recognize that a problem exists. I think those that recognize that there is problem far outweighs those that don't. Eliminating all of the detractors is never going to happen. I mean, there are still flat-earthers out there for crissakes. Also, I don't think it is all that helpful to think of it as 'a' problem. It is a cluster of related issues and viewpoints. A person can recognize one issue or viewpoint as a problem that needs to be fixed while another does not for /that particular issue/ without invalidating vast areas of agreement between the two parties. There is a lot of room in this arch-issue. To try to get everyone to agree in totality is absurd, I hope you agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable to mark some people as lost causes if their cluster of ideas are hopelessly disjoint from the overall consensus. And if we all agree to treat them as pariahs (and I think many of us have) then we can discount their contributions to the overall equation. >I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm arguing against your "everyone please stop discussing the topic" policy, because it's harmful. I think you mistake my position. It is not 'everyone please stop discussing the topic' it is 'If we are going to talk about something lets talk about solutions since the problem has been identified.' A bit more subtle, I know, but the distinction is important. >You can't tell me the action items aren't controversial when you're disagreeing with what you think my proposed action item is right now. I am also not saying that /some/ action items are not controversial. If people were running around talking about the merits and effectiveness of various action items I'd be pleased as punch. I mean, one possible action item would be to require by law that people hire two women for every man until parity is achieved but I'd probably not get behind such a 'one size fits all' solution. IOW, don't take a relatively small disagreement in one area of this vast topic and turn it into a giant chasm. We are not at a 'we agree completely or disagree utterly' level of granularity here but that is where a lot of people tend to want to take 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.

saraid216 12y ago
> I don't think any of these things are controversial They are. Especially the first one, which is just a slightly lower-level affirmative action, and a lot of people will use the second one as a justification for discriminatory treatment. The convenience of surrounding yourself with people who are not assholes doesn't magically make all the assholes in the world disappear. There are people who complain that things like Girls Who Code is discriminatory against men. [1] There are people who complain that the demand for respect is censorship against their right to self-expression. [1] https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/0/%22girls%20who%20code%22%20men https://hn.algolia.com/#!/comment/forever/0/%22girls%20who%2... > I am even more interested in knowing what other people have tried and what worked and what didn't. Then stop asking people to stop discussing solutions. > but it seems like a backward step to be stuck on the 'identify the problem' phase. Except that a lot of people don't even recognize that a problem exists. Seriously, the "Maven is my girlfriend" slide hit the social media only a week ago. > 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. I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm arguing against your "everyone please stop discussing the topic" policy, because it's harmful. I expressed a willingness to vote on a bill because you expressed an interest in using that method. I mean, really. You can't tell me the action items aren't controversial when you're disagreeing with what you think my proposed action item is right now.
- clavalle 12y ago
  >The convenience of surrounding yourself with people who are not assholes doesn't magically make all the assholes in the world disappear. No, but just like no one can replenish the all of the lost trees by themselves, no one can uproot all of the assholes of the world either. What I can do it plant a few trees on my property, encourage others to do the same until, collectively, a difference is made. If people find it harder to be assholes there will 'magically' be fewer assholes. >Then stop asking people to stop discussing solutions. That's the thing, they are not discussing solutions, they are just pointing out that there is a problem. It is a signal to noise issue at this point. >Except that a lot of people don't even recognize that a problem exists. I think those that recognize that there is problem far outweighs those that don't. Eliminating all of the detractors is never going to happen. I mean, there are still flat-earthers out there for crissakes. Also, I don't think it is all that helpful to think of it as 'a' problem. It is a cluster of related issues and viewpoints. A person can recognize one issue or viewpoint as a problem that needs to be fixed while another does not for /that particular issue/ without invalidating vast areas of agreement between the two parties. There is a lot of room in this arch-issue. To try to get everyone to agree in totality is absurd, I hope you agree. I think it is perfectly acceptable to mark some people as lost causes if their cluster of ideas are hopelessly disjoint from the overall consensus. And if we all agree to treat them as pariahs (and I think many of us have) then we can discount their contributions to the overall equation. >I'm actually not advocating anything. I'm arguing against your "everyone please stop discussing the topic" policy, because it's harmful. I think you mistake my position. It is not 'everyone please stop discussing the topic' it is 'If we are going to talk about something lets talk about solutions since the problem has been identified.' A bit more subtle, I know, but the distinction is important. >You can't tell me the action items aren't controversial when you're disagreeing with what you think my proposed action item is right now. I am also not saying that /some/ action items are not controversial. If people were running around talking about the merits and effectiveness of various action items I'd be pleased as punch. I mean, one possible action item would be to require by law that people hire two women for every man until parity is achieved but I'd probably not get behind such a 'one size fits all' solution. IOW, don't take a relatively small disagreement in one area of this vast topic and turn it into a giant chasm. We are not at a 'we agree completely or disagree utterly' level of granularity here but that is where a lot of people tend to want to take it.