
GitHub donates private repositories to women learning open source software - nealyoung
http://adainitiative.org/2013/04/github-donates-private-repositories-to-women-learning-open-source-software/
======
jmj42
You know this makes me sick. Time and time again, articles pop up here on HN
talking about some organization trying to promote and encourage women in
technology and the comments explode with privileged boys whining about about
how "it's not fair"

You know what's not fair? A Teacher telling a 12 year old girl that she needs
a backup plan because girls getting an engineering degree, well, that's hard.
Getting one from MIT, girls just don't do that. With the very next breath
telling the boy standing next to the girl that she (the teacher) knows he can
get into MIT if he works hard.

I'm just sick of it. I'm sick of my little girl coming home crying because
some idiot crushed her dream of an engineering degree from MIT because girls
don't do that. I'm sick of the privileged idiots here, complaining that women
are getting some kind of advantage because they get a free github account. I'm
sick of cluelessness.

The barriers for women in the workplace are difficult enough, it's worse in
tech. The sooner we accept that, and accept that some organizations really are
try to make a difference, the better off we'll be. How many times have we read
stories about women who are alienated by their peers because their interests
align with something that isn't "girlie." Please!

I've fought hard to teach my girls that society's barriers are there to be
knocked down, that they shouldn't get discouraged and that they can do what
ever they want. 18 years later, I'm proud that my oldest has ignored the
criticism, the "you can't do that, it's a man's job" BS and is on her way to
the Coast Guard where she will train as a rescue swimmer (there's only 7 women
rescue swimmers now). I'm proud that my youngest stood up to that teacher and
told her: well, perhaps MIT isn't the place for her. After all, MIT engineers
ask UIUC engineers for help of the real difficult problems, though MIT will
make a fine backup plan.

My point is, boys, get over it. I'm sorry you didn't get something for free.
Oh wait, you did. You got to be male, a much bigger advantage than a free
private github repository.

 __Edit: Spelling/grammer

~~~
cosmez
That last paragraph is exactly the reason i hate this sexist talks, it doesn't
matter if its the boys or girls that are complaining..

I don't know if that's the case in the place you are living right now but, if
you think that being a boy or a girl its an advantage then you are part of
that problem..

Boys will always be boys, ignore them and move on.

~~~
eridius
If you can't recognize that men have a vast amount of privilege compared to
women, then I don't really know what to say.

Last year a man named Geordie Tait posted an article called "To My Someday
Daughter"[1]. It's quite long, but definitely worth reading. The context is
gaming, but the central thesis is sexism. One quote from the article that
really opened my eyes to how radically different men and women view the world
comes from section 7 of the article. It's a quote by Gavin de Becker, and it
says

"Men and women live in different worlds. At core, men are afraid women will
laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them."

And according to my girlfriend, this is not even the slightest bit
exaggerated.

[1]:
[http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/22786_To_My_Someday_...](http://www.starcitygames.com/magic/misc/22786_To_My_Someday_Daughter.html)

~~~
pifflesnort
> _If you can't recognize that men have a vast amount of privilege compared to
> women, then I don't really know what to say._

The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least
productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender
equality.

This -- along with redefinitions of vocabulary to justify offense (see the
comment about 'female' being offensive), and truisms that assert that any
opposition to preferred policy is opposition to gender equality (see the
reference to Lewis's law, or your own murder quote), are why these
conversations are so pointlessly and ridiculously laden in rhetorical nonsense
as to be useless.

> _"Men and women live in different worlds. At core, men are afraid women will
> laugh at them, while at core, women are afraid men will kill them." And
> according to my girlfriend, this is not even the slightest bit exaggerated._

According to my wife, this is ridiculous and your girlfriend should adopt a
more fact-based view of the world.

I looked it up. From 2000 to 2010, there were 128,971 _male_ victims of murder
in the US. There were 35,777 _female_ victims.

<http://projects.wsj.com/murderdata>

To use your own rhetorical approach: if you disagree with me, "then I don't
really know what to say". (sarcasm intended).

~~~
jmj42
> The locally-defined concept of "male privilege" is quite possibly the least
> productive gender generalization to use in a conversation about gender
> equality.

Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory that
men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that
are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually
denied to women."

It's actually a fairly useful generalization, and most understand what's
implied by the use of the term. Of course the real problem isn't the use of
rhetoric, it's the outright dismissal of the argument because rhetoric or faux
outrage was used to make a point (or, as in my original comment, _real_
outrage).

I'm sorry to say, but we're past the time to be calm, cool, and collected.
It's time to get angry, and it's time to put and end to gender inequality.
Especially in tech, where we claim to hold ourselves to a higher moral
standard.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _Well, let's clear it up then: "Male privilege refers to the social theory
> that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights
> that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are
> usually denied to women."_

The useful part is "... which are usually denied to women". The rest is just
divisive stereotyping.

> _It's actually a fairly useful generalization, and most understand what's
> implied by the use of the term._

Useful how, exactly? Other than stoking the flames of online discourse, and
writing off viewpoints by using "privilege" as a rhetorical bat, I don't see
much that can be usefully garnered by pulling the trigger on that particular
weapon.

> _It's time to get angry, and it's time to put and end to gender inequality.
> Especially in tech, where we claim to hold ourselves to a higher moral
> standard._

As far as I can tell, you're getting angry at the wrong people, for the wrong
reasons.

You really think the tech industry is responsible for clueless mouth breathers
telling your daughters that technology is 'boy stuff'?

I'd look at the educational system and the magazine rack at the supermarket.
By the time someone gets to the technology industry, they've already been
subjected to a lifetime of indoctrination and have missed out on critical
educational opportunities. We're not paid to be educators or social crusaders;
we're here to write software, design hardware, and ship products.

We _do_ need to have access to better candidates, and one way to do that is by
broadening the pool to draw from, but divisive adults playing at identity
politics won't help with that problem.

~~~
jmj42
>Useful how, exactly?

As a two word phrase which everyone understands to mean the social theory that
men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights that
are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are usually
denied to women.

> As far as I can tell, you're getting angry at the wrong people, for the
> wrong reasons.

>You really think the tech industry is responsible for clueless mouth
breathers telling your daughters that technology is 'boy stuff'?

Directly no, but by saying it's not our job to deal with the problem, you're
just as culpable. So long as there are people in this industry, or any other,
who refuse to address gender issues because it's not our job, or there's
nothing I can do about it, then those are the people I should be getting angry
at. By refusing to acknowledge the problem and addressing it directly, we
allow the problem to continue.

As an industry that embrases diversity (gender; racial; social) but suffers
from a lack of it, regardless of blame, it's on us to stand up to society and
find solutions. We should be social crusaders. By being a members of the
society in which the problem exists, it _is_ our responsibility to work to
correct it.

My job is not "to write software, design hardware, and ship products," from
the moment my daughters were born my job is educator, and social advocate.
Shipping products: That's just what I do to pay the bills. Don't get me wrong,
I love what I do for a living. I still get excited about new toys (we have new
equipment showing up next week), cool projects, being involved in cutting-edge
research, but at the end of the day, it's all meaningless. None of it compares
to the glow in my daughters eyes two years ago when she opened the Mindtorms
kit she got for christmas, or the excitement _she_ has when she pulls out the
erector set with some grand new idea.

So, yeah, _my_ job is to educate and crusade.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _As a two word phrase which everyone understands to mean the social theory
> that men have unearned social, economic, and political advantages or rights
> that are granted to them solely on the basis of their sex, and which are
> usually denied to women._

How do you think people react to hearing that what they perceive (often
rightfully) as hard-earned success was, in your eyes, unearned?

It's not a productive line of discussion.

> _So, yeah, _my_ job is to educate and crusade._

Using divisive and emotional rhetoric just makes people stop listening.

I'd be interested in sponsoring, hosting, or otherwise contributing to _non-
gendered_ youth programs that were _welcoming_ to girls _and_ boys.

I don't even know where to start, but I do know that the Ada Initiative's
divisive identity politics and concern-trolling aren't something I agree with,
and disagreement with their organization doesn't make me a "male privileged"
moral bankrupt individual.

~~~
jmj42
> How do you think people react to hearing that what they perceive (often
> rightfully) as hard-earned success was, in your eyes, unearned?

Ahh, but that's the guts of male privilege isn't it. Their hard-earned success
was much easier to come by than a women whose achieved the same level of
success. That's what privilege means. It was easier for man to gain that
success than their women counterpart. Perhaps not so rhetorical after all. It
just stings. Sometimes the truth does that. And sometimes, the only way to
break through the denial of an issue is to take a hard stance.

This _is_ an emotional issue. It's people's lives we're talking about. As
young women, it's emotional for my daughters. As a father, it's emotional for
me. As developers who want to "expand the talent pool", it's emotional for the
industry. As people who wish to be blind to gender, it's emotional for
society.

> I'd be interested in sponsoring, hosting, or otherwise contributing to non-
> gendered youth programs

That's great. I'm involved in several myself, including the STEM outreach
program at our schools. That doesn't mean that programs targeted at young
girls aren't necessary. These "gendered" programs are as much about counter-
acting the social pressure the keeps them out of STEM as they are about
introducing and developing interest in STEM generally.

Now, I don't know anything about the Ada Initiative, so I'll leave that alone,
but will say this, as I said before, ignoring the problem may not make you
morally bankrupt, but it does make you complicit in others bankruptcy.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _Ahh, but that's the guts of male privilege isn't it. Their hard-earned
> success was much easier to come by than a women whose achieved the same
> level of success. That's what privilege means. It was easier for man to gain
> that success than their women counterpart. Perhaps not so rhetorical after
> all. It just stings. Sometimes the truth does that. And sometimes, the only
> way to break through the denial of an issue is to take a hard stance._

Do you want to be right, or do you want to be heard?

------
archon
> This reluctance has good reasons behind it: fear of being told they are bad
> programmers, fear of being publicly mocked or harassed, and even fear of
> losing job opportunities. All of these are greater risks for women on
> average than men.

[Citation needed]

Edit, to expand on the kneejerk reaction: I find it difficult to accept the
premise that this is a female-only problem. I've been reluctant to post my
code before as well, and I'm male. The sometimes ruthless mockery of code
isn't confined to code written by females.

~~~
Voidkom
Females as a noun is used to refer to lower animals, I believe you mean women.

~~~
bdg
Source?

Right now that's just reading like a baseless claim and it sounds ridiculous
to me that "females" is derogatory. I've never heard of such a claim before in
my entire life.

~~~
steveklabnik
There are two reasons why "female" is problematic:

1\. It refers to sex, not gender. I know many women who do not possess a
vagina. 2\. It sounds very clinical and sterile. It's appropriate for, say, a
scientific survey, but not for addressing other humans with the respect they
deserve.

I don't refer to 'men' as 'males,' either.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _There are two reasons why "female" is problematic: .._

Your reply demonstrates some standard rhetorical landmines used by fringe
groups:

1) Redefine words within your subculture (in this case: 'gender', 'sex',
'male', and 'female') and then use the new definitions to claim externally
inconsiderate use of those words.

2) Assume that whether or not someone was offended ultimately defines ethical
norms (especially when tied to #1, redefining vocabulary to create reasons for
offense).

~~~
steveklabnik
I don't care whatsoever about 'offense.' I do care about causing actual harm
to human beings. De-humanizing others causes actual harm, through things like
wage gaps, (in this case) rape culture, lack of equal rights, etc.

1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here. Sex is a biological thing, a
scientific term. If you say "male" and "female," I'd argue you're being a bit
clinical, but if you say "man" and "female," you're obviously demonstrating
something. It may not be conscious, but you are.

2) You're free to have whatever ethical norms you want, but just like 'free
speech,' that doesn't mean you're free from criticism. You can call anyone
whatever you like, doesn't mean that I (and others) won't think you're a
shitty person, _especially_ after having an explicit conversation about it.

"Hey, this thing hurts me." / "I don't care, I can say whatever I want."

~~~
pifflesnort
> _1) There's no 'redefinition' going on here._

"However, Money's meaning of the word [gender] did not become widespread until
the 1970s, when feminist theory embraced the distinction between biological
sex and the social construct of gender. Today, the distinction is strictly
followed in some contexts, especially the social sciences[5][6] and documents
written by the World Health Organization (WHO).[4] However, in most other
contexts, even in some areas of social sciences, the meaning of gender has
undergone a usage shift to include "sex" or even to replace the latter word."

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender>

That's just 'gender' and 'sex'. The first responder proceeded to redefine
'female' and 'male':

    
    
       "Females as a noun is used to refer to lower animals, I believe you mean women."
    

No reputable dictionary or colloquial usage defines 'female' as a noun to
refer to " _lower animals_."

> _2) You're free to have whatever ethical norms you want, but just like 'free
> speech,' that doesn't mean you're free from criticism. You can call anyone
> whatever you like, doesn't mean that I (and others) won't think you're a
> shitty person, _especially_ after having an explicit conversation about it._

Which one of us gets to tell the other how to behave on the basis of how we
_feel_ about it? I find it offensive how you use rhetoric to label those you
disagree with as 'shitty' people; it doesn't leave any room for discourse.

I'm reminded of the Stephen Fry quote:

 _"It's now very common to hear people say, 'I'm rather offended by that.' As
if that gives them certain rights. It's actually nothing more... than a whine.
'I find that offensive.' It has no meaning; it has no purpose; it has no
reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I am offended by that.' Well, so fucking
what."_

Indeed, being offended provides no insight into understanding _why_ you're
offended, and without explaining _why_ , there's no basis to make a rational
evaluation of whether the behavior that offends you is actually ethically
wrong.

~~~
steveklabnik
1, I totally disagree 100% with the 'lower animals' statement, so you know. I
think that's pretty ridiculous.

Let's put it this way: words change over time, and if the word changed in the
70s (that was before I was even alive), then it's changed, and the words we
use _now_ matter _now_. Language is _never_ static.

2, You keep going back to that 'offense' bit, and referring to 'feelings.' I
am not offended. That doesn't come into this at all, as I'm not a liberal.
Please read my part about wage gaps, rape culture, and equal rights again.

> Indeed, being offended provides no insight into understanding why you're
> offended, and without explaining why, there's no basis to make a rational
> evaluation of whether the behavior that offends you is actually ethically
> wrong.

As I said before and above, there has been endless explanation of material
harm caused by the cultural situation that women (and other minority groups)
face today. If you don't know why, at this point, you're just being willfully
ignorant.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _Let's put it this way: words change over time, and if the word changed in
> the 70s (that was before I was even alive), then it's changed, and the words
> we use _now_ matter _now_. Language is _never_ static._

I wholly agree. But the usage is not universal (by far), and the reworked
definitions _are_ used to hit people over the head.

I call a trans person by their preferred gender because it's the polite thing
to do, and I try to be a polite and respectful person. However, bringing it up
in this context to hit someone over the head for their word choices is _not_
polite.

> _As I said before and above, there has been endless explanation of material
> harm caused by the cultural situation that women (and other minority groups)
> face today. If you don't know why, at this point, you're just being
> willfully ignorant._

Which is why using logic-defying rhetorical anvils is just so counter-
productively _trite_ and trivial. It leaves me wondering whether these forms
of divisive identity politics are really about the equality they claim to be
trying to achieve.

------
clintonc
I'm actually pretty angry about this. A much better plan would have been to
offer free private repositories to any not-for-profit entity. Offering
exclusively to women seems, to me, discriminatory.

Edit: Reading the article more closely, I'm not as bothered as as I was.
Technically, Github granted unlimited private repositories to the Ada
organization, who (I suppose) delegates their use to its members. It's not as
though you can go to github.com and say, "I'm a woman, give me free private
repositories."

~~~
qntmfred
well since Ada is paying the sponsorship, I guess they can distribute them
however they like, yes?

~~~
clintonc
The way I see it, ADA is not paying -- Github is donating. This is, actually,
much less incendiary than the headline would lead us to believe...

------
sergiotapia
Or you know, use BitBucket that offers free private repositories for everyone
and anyone.

~~~
dsyph3r
I think you're missing the point.

~~~
redidas
I think github's missing the point. To encourage a group to do open source we
provide them with private repositories?

I get how this group may feel hesitant to post something in the open source
world, but so was I, and I'm a guy.

Here's an analogy that maybe fits: Consider you meet someone that's afraid of
flying. Do you say "come with me, I'll show you its safe" or do you say
"here's a bunch of train and bus passes"

~~~
dsyph3r
Writing code in an open source environment can be extremely intimidating.
There is an unfortunate element of elitism around writing code and this can be
very off putting for many people. Being able to code, learn, and get criticism
in the privacy of a private repository is a big step toward open sourcing your
code

~~~
prodigal_erik
I'm pro-elitism. It seems to me that only the most dedicated and obsessed have
even a small chance of ever doing decent work, and I'm all for dissuading
everyone else from adding to the mountain of poorly understood and unreliable
garbage holding back our profession. I don't think anyone knows how to give
(inflict?) that obsession to any child who didn't already have it, but luring
the timid into a field at this stage so lacking in rigor is a waste of the
useful talents they could offer to other fields.

------
woah
IANAW, but this almost seems sexist in and of itself. Is Github shielding the
delicate female programmers from the merciless wrath of internet trolls? I
guess the assumption is that big strong male programmers don't need this kind
of coddling.

~~~
marquis
This reply is exactly why this initiative is needed. Can't you just say 'hey,
more people contributing to open source!'

~~~
dcope
How is pushing code to a private repository 'contributing to open source'?

~~~
bryanlarsen
This makes it easier for people to clean up their code before letting the
world see it. I wouldn't be surprised if it made some people more willing to
contribute.

------
jcoder
I can't believe the whining comments here so far. GitHub can contribute to any
organization it wants to.

~~~
pifflesnort
People are also free to criticize Github for any reason they want to.

Personally, I think the Ada Initiative is doing far more harm than good.
They're pushing a strange brand of coddling and gender privilege.

~~~
marquis
It's fine you think that. I think that hundreds of girls don't really care
about that initial help, will get some seriously good programming done,
release some fantastic code and not read your comment at all except with a
passing glance at someone who feels slighted for something that doesn't affect
him at all.

~~~
pifflesnort
> _... except with a passing glance at someone who feels slighted for
> something that doesn't affect him at all._

If the Ada Initiative didn't affect the rest of the industry at all, then they
wouldn't be considered effective at their mission.

Whether or not you agree with the way they approach their mission is another
question.

~~~
marquis
Is this a zero sum game? Are there only 1000 jobs ever in the world and men
are worried for their positions?

------
sneak
The fact that they partnered with the destructive and notorious Ada Initiative
is disappointing. They are little more than concern-trolls, and they are doing
far more to hinder equality than promote it.

GitHub is full of great people and poor choices like this are incongruent.

PS: This isn't male privilege speaking - The Ada Initiative is disliked (for
very good reason) by feminists of both genders.

~~~
jubalfh
Do substantiate.

~~~
sneak
They have a history of drama-generation and concern-trolling related to
conference organizers and speakers over things that have absolutely nothing to
do with womens' rights, equality, or discrimination, which are then dressed up
as feminism and used to censor and attack others (who are not participating in
discrimination or furthering discriminatory ideas) based on the personal sex-
negative agendas of those running the Ada Initiative.

[http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/01/stigmatizin...](http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2013/03/01/stigmatizing-
censoring-talk-of-sexuality-in-technology/)

------
SeoxyS
I fully support GitHub's right to do whatever they want, but I can't help but
find this slightly distasteful. This is affirmative action, which I disagree
with in principle.

------
tedchs
FWIW, it seems like this will not give you private repos under your own Github
Account, but just a private repo under the Github "organization" for the Ada
Initiative.

------
rounak
Private repository for learning open source software. Makes perfect sense.

------
Voidkom
For those crying sexism, go take a look at the amount of women in the
business, now THAT's what sexism looks like.

~~~
byroot
Go take a look at the amount of men in the business of midwifing, it's even
worse.

Is there anything that prevent a men to work in this field ? I know a guy who
did, so I can tell you: Nothing.

If we lack of women in CS it's mostly because women themselves thinks it's not
attractive, just like they don't see trucker, or construction worker as
attractive jobs. For the same reason teaching, widwifing, etc lack of mens.

IHMO: It's the culture that drive the inbalance in a given field, and the
inbalance that create some macho mens, not the other way.

~~~
ddagradi
GitHub is not a company involved in the business of midwifing. They are a
company involved in the business of software development.

Is it not possible that the cultural imbalance in all of these fields is due
to sexism?

------
manacit
I get five free private repos for being a university student (for as long as
I'm a student) - I don't see why we can't just extend something like this to
people who are learning how to program / use github, and not just
women/students

~~~
steveklabnik
They could, but they're not. Obviously they have a reason to do so, are you
aware of what that is and why they might choose that reason?

------
lawnchair_larry
I'm really starting to wonder if The Ada Initiative is making more enemies
than progress. Are they trying to promote equality, or female privilege?

------
bobsicle
I'm a paying github user, and I love github but I can't believe github allowed
this. Firstly they are not helping open source if the code is private and
secondly it should be for everyone. We hear a lot of people women nowadays
complain about inequality and shit, if they are honest they should know this
is utterly wrong and should do something to change it, else it's a bit
hypocritical. no?

------
mindcrime
All in all, I think (well, hope) this is a Good Thing. To the extent that
(some?) women face different (or more severe) problems in getting started in
programming and contributing to F/OSS projects, if this helps ease that
process, then it's a win for the world.

Now, I can understand some of the reactions, from both men and women. On the
one hand, I can see why guys might say "isn't this just a different form of
sexism?" and I can see how even some women might be offended (the same kind of
women who freak out if a man holds a door open for them, probably). But
despite all that, this has a chance to get more people involved in, and
contributing to, the F/OSS world. For that, I think we can accept a small
measure of "reverse sexism", given the context, and I think the radfem types
can like it or leave it, while their female peers are busy writing code.

Yeah, it would be nice to live in a world which is more or less totally
gender-blind, but we're not there yet and this move may at least help level
the playing field a little bit.

------
needacig
To those saying, "Why is this necessary? This isn't fair!", Well, here's your
answer: <http://xkcd.com/385/> (XKCD nailed it, as usual.)

~~~
dwild
And here's my answer: Are you a girl?

We are on the internet, I can't see you, I have no idea who you are.

~~~
needacig
Why does that matter?

EDIT: Oh, do you mean that women should hide the fact that they are women
online when contributing to OSS? I imagine many do.

~~~
redidas
I think what dwild is after is that online identities don't always have a
gender attached to them, whether it be intentional or not.

If the gender is not apparent, then there's no real way to discriminate is
there?

This especially goes for HN. I have no idea who is man and who isn't, as most
use some sort of username/alias instead of their real name.

~~~
needacig
If the gender is not apparent, then there is no way to discriminate. I'm not
sure what this has to do with the main article though. Many people like to
connect their online accounts to their real identity (and thus gender),
especially their GitHub accounts. Some don't. Is the suggestion that if women
don't want to be discriminated against, they should hide their identities?

------
bencollier49
IANAL, but this appears to be a breach of the Equality Act 2010. Are they
offering this in the UK?

~~~
marquis
If you'd like to get your local Scouts group to work on code within the safe
measures of private repos, I'm sure you'd also find sponsors. It's not a
breach of Equality when you aren't stopping other people from doing something.
I'm sure Github would love sponsorship from all over the place.

A benefit of this is clever on Ada and Github's part: a lot of women don't
participate in code sharing because of reasons that are discussed here enough.
So women will get to find each other and work on code together and hey, the
world gets software, and Github makes some happy new customers. I, for one, am
signing up even though I barely have the time - I'm eager to meet other women
coders in a working environment and I'd like to find a small way to pay back
the massive debt I have to the open source community.

~~~
pnathan
There is often a disjoint set of expectations between F/LOSS culture and women
(besides occasional outright misogyny). Providing a system where women can be
eased into the coding experience is, IMO, a very kind thing to do.

I visited a church recently and some college students spoke about why they
chose that church. Uniformly, the kindness of the church community was a
common thread through their comments. It's a human thing: we lean towards
people who show kindness to us, especially in forms we can relate to. These
bridging activities such as what Github and the Ada Initiative are doing
provide a great deal of value in my opinion.

~~~
theorique
What you say makes a lot of sense. In another comment on this, I mentioned
that the leaders of the open source world seem to be famously aggressive,
prickly, and concerned only with the truth, not with feelings or being polite
[1].

Changing the culture to something "kind", if that is what the community truly
wants, will take more than a few donated repos. It will be interesting to see
the impact it happens.

[1] One of many examples <http://www.muktware.com/3703/linus-torvalds-nvidia-
fuck-you>

------
anoncow
How do female programmers differ from male programmers? I find this offensive.
There are better ways to help promote programming among women. Equal salaries
for starters could be a real equaliser.

~~~
eridius
Yes, I too am offended that an organization would dare donate anything to the
Ada Initiative. Since we obviously live in a post-sexist egalitarian society,
any sort of donation to one organization is clearly discriminatory against
those not part of or benefitting from the organization!

</sarcasm>

I'm pretty damn sure GitHub can't affect the salaries of women that aren't
direct employees of them. In what way does GitHub doing what it can do, which
is donate to an organization like the Ada Initiative, cause offense?

~~~
juridatenshi
Agreed with you about the donations. Tangentially, it would be cool if GitHub
had more diversity in their software engineering staff - that is something
they have control over.

~~~
marquis
A really good way to increase the diversity of your staff is to encourage
education for minority groups.

~~~
juridatenshi
Definitely. I'm excited they're doing this, and I think it is useful. :)

The comment about hiring was mostly an aside as something else I wish they
were taking more active efforts with in addition to efforts like this one.

------
lizzard
I've been answering emails along with other Ada Initiative folks all
afternoon!! A lot of women all over the world are _very_ happy and excited to
get to try things out on github. The Systers list was so helpful in
distributing the link to a diverse worldwide group of women in the field and
students just starting out. I think this will have a very positive result and
bring many more women into fully contributing to F/LOSS.

Since so many times, people in open source projects wonder what they can do to
help, and given the incredibly positive response I've seen so far today from
women who've read the blog post and who say it is going to help them, I'm
feeling hopeful -- and proud to be part of TAI's efforts to contribute.

I love supporting anyone's learning, especially in free/open tech and culture,
and spend a lot of my time trying to do exactly that. Some of that time, I
make sure to focus on supporting other women. Taking the time to support other
women is often something that has to be a deliberate act, because it is all
too easy to just pay more attention to men, who expect and to some degree
demand it, so, I have tried for many years to make that an essential part of
my life.

Cheers, HN.

~~~
whiterabbit2
REALLY? I'm a subscriber of a few lists for women in tech (Systers included),
only one posted the link (followed by no comments). Systers tech talk posted
nothing. Systers-dev and -foss, neither. Although, I'm probably subscribed to
wrong groups... such as women working in tech (including learners), mostly
programming. Not lists for people having problems with programming.

------
seivan
What about LGBTQ, what about transgendered? Does this only apply to cis-
females?

So if this is a demographic Github wants to see an increase in, does this mean
they don't care enough about others?

~~~
alxp
An advocacy group for other minorities in tech probably just got a great idea
of something they can lobby for themselves, and are very thankful to the Ada
Initiative for the idea.

------
oellegaard
1st class gender discrimination. In fact, this would be illegal in many
European countries.

------
rguillebert
Why not just create a github account under a nickname ?

~~~
lizzard
We do, and I think the right & ability to work under pseudonymity is very
important. But at some point having a career means that people want to hook
their identities together. A bunch of the CS students coming into this only
have an inkling of the crap they are about to face in the field. Hopefully
more of us will stick around to find out all the awesome stuff and will
believe in the philosophy and idealism of F/LOSS's potential to make the world
better.

------
caiob
Why?

~~~
marquis
From the article: "In working with women in open source, the Ada Initiative
found that many women are reluctant to post their code publicly when they are
first getting started in open source software. This reluctance has good
reasons behind it: fear of being told they are bad programmers, fear of being
publicly mocked or harassed, and even fear of losing job opportunities. All of
these are greater risks for women on average than men. But the best way to get
better at programming is to collaborate with and get review from other
programmers, which is far easier to do with a shared repository like those
provided by GitHub. Unfortunately, private repositories are too expensive for
most women just getting started in open source software."

~~~
theorique
_Unfortunately, private repositories are too expensive for most women just
getting started in open source software._

If $7-12 / month (github's two lowest cost paid plans) is 'too expensive' for
a person getting started in open source software, that person might want to
rethink how interested and/or committed they actually are.

It's fine if Ada / github want to give female programmers a leg up to
accomplish some social goal. But don't pretend it's due to some insurmountable
financial cost.

~~~
marquis
I didn't write the article, but I agree with the premise. Women earn less,
have children who come first. If you have small kids at home the best possible
job is programming but you don't have a credit card or saving up for the
winter power bill comes first.

~~~
theorique
Fair point. Although it would seem in that case like time or social connection
are bigger barriers. I guess people and orgs will do what they can.

------
Nux
I can give private repos, too. Now put me on HN first page!

