
The White House Gives Up on Making Coders Dress Like Adults - luu
http://www.wired.com/2014/08/the-white-house-dickerson/
======
Sambdala
That's a pretty condescending title.

It doesn't seem like it comes from an attitude too far removed from
congressmen being proud of not understanding tech issues because it's all nerd
stuff.

Edit: A facebook comment on the article really showcases the sentiment, just
more explicitly: "So keep them in the basement, feed them pizza and Redbull
and let them wear what they need. Does the gardener wear a tux and bowtie?"

~~~
taylorbuley
Please consider that the condescension could be perceived and not intended. I
know personally that Bob McMillan is not the kind of journalist to make such
insinuations.

~~~
mikeash
Personally, I think it's OK to hold professional writers accountable for what
their words convey. If not intended, he still should have been able to realize
how others would interpret it.

Everybody makes mistakes and this isn't a huge one, but part of making
mistakes is getting called on it.

~~~
lutusp
> Personally, I think it's OK to hold professional writers accountable for
> what their words convey.

Now there's a classic constitutional issue. The law is pretty clear on this --
if you want to offer a quack medical treatment and you advertise it, you might
be arrested for misleading the public and/or practicing medicine without a
license. But if you put the same words in a book or magazine article that's
not an advertisement, you're safe.

If a writer plagiarizes, he might be sanctioned by his employer or gain a bad
public reputation. If a writer libels someone, he could be sued in civil
court. But writing is safe in ways that most things aren't, based on the idea
that we should allow free expression of ideas.

A writer can say virtually anything in a book or a publication that's not an
advertisement, not part of commerce, and not expected to be a reflection of
fact.

~~~
mikeash
What the hell?

When I say "hold accountable" here, I'm just talking about criticizing the
writers for the implications of what they say, even if they didn't necessarily
mean to imply that.

It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue of
anything you mentioned here.

~~~
lutusp
> When I say "hold accountable" here ...

That expression isn't open to interpretation -- it means made to suffer
consequences that result from prior actions.

> It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue
> of anything you mentioned here.

It's all those things. You don't get to define words any way you please in a
public forum -- even though you certainly have the right to express yourself
any way you please.

~~~
mikeash
From my Mac's built-in dictionary:

"(of a person, organization, or institution) required or expected to justify
actions or decisions; responsible"

From the Cambridge Dictionary:

"Someone who is accountable is completely responsible for what they do and
must be able to give a satisfactory reason for it"

From Merriam-Webster:

"subject to giving an account"

Where the relevant definition of "account" is:

"a statement explaining one's conduct"

I can't find _any_ definition in any dictionary that says it's only about
legal consequences.

That horse you're on is mighty tall, you may wish to come down with the rest
of us.

~~~
lutusp
> I can't find any definition in any dictionary that says it's only about
> legal consequences.

 _Only_ about legal consequences? No one made that claim. But being held
accountable is certainly a legal term.

[http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/accountability/](http://definitions.uslegal.com/a/accountability/)

Quote: "Under state laws, a person must reach a certain age before they can be
_held accountable_ in both civil and criminal matters."

How hard is that, for someone with an open mind?

And do you really downvote other people's posts solely because they try to
correct your misuses of English? You do see the risk, don't you? That you will
remain ignorant forever?

~~~
mikeash
A lot of words have special legal meanings. That doesn't mean they don't hold
other meanings outside of a legal setting. Since I never referred to anything
legal, the legal definition does not apply.

I'm not downvoting your posts. Stop jumping to conclusions.

~~~
dang
Please both stop.

------
angersock
I'm a bit annoyed with the title--I take great offense that somehow I'm not an
"adult" because I'm not wearing some bullshit costume when not in a customer-
facing position.

Seriously, software is eating the world (lol), and it's still funny to treat
developers as infantile? Christ.

~

[https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/378059600](https://www.usajobs.gov/GetJob/ViewDetails/378059600)

"RELOCATION EXPENSES WILL NOT BE PAID"

Fuck you, Fedland.

~~~
thrownaway2424
People get treated like children when they behave like children. This isn't
specific to software developers, though. I see grown men wearing shorts and
flip-flops quite frequently. These people are stuck in childhood. Where I work
the carpenters are consistently better-dressed than the hackers, just by way
of having pants and shoes. That's a bit sad, to me. I actually feel like I'll
be ridiculed if I wear a collared shirt to work, although there is an
identifiable backlash of properly-dressed adults in the office, which I
applaud.

Anyway, I find it regrettable if the image of the profession is one of
disheveled, slovenly, overgrown babies. I don't think that's healthy and I
doubt it contributes much to diversifying away from white males.

~~~
nitrogen
Developers have realized that the technology of fashion, just like that of
software, doesn't need to be stuck in the past. There's nothing slovenly or
disheveled about wearing nice jeans or nice shorts instead of stuffy slacks.

Suits can look amazing, but they are just one tiny corner of the realm of
possible styles, and nobody likes being backed into a corner.

~~~
mikeash
We should go back to togas. If it was good enough for Julius Caesar, it should
be good enough for me.

------
jl6
>One thing that’s even more important than the latitude to ditch a tie is the
latitude to chose the best tool for the job.

I hope they don't lose sight of the fact that in a large organisation, "the
job" includes not just the technical solution, but also maintenance and
management of that solution across potentially long periods of time by
potentially many different people, integrating with many other teams, with
limited resources, in a domain which you as a developer don't necessarily have
a deep understanding of, and against a background of legacy solutions that
can't easily be changed, and with large-group politics in play.

In other words, people don't choose Java and Windows because they're idiots.
It's because there are other forces at work beyond just picking the
technically optimal solution.

~~~
incision
Absolutely.

On one hand, it is entirely to easy to look back or even laterally at the
decisions people make and fault them for choices driven by circumstances that
may not be obvious.

On the other hand, there are plenty of people whose justification for such
decisions begins and ends with how well it fits in their own comfort zone
and/or how it affects their headcount.

Both of these things are prevalent in Government.

It's a serious balancing act to navigate those forces in managing or reforming
existing systems - far harder than building the same with a clean slate.

The materials to come out of the USDS so far have been right on point so I
feel confident that this part will receive the same sort of attention, but I
have noticed the seeming absence of attention to O&M thus far.

------
mikeash
What the hell is with that title? Is Wired now in the camp where "nerd" is
something shameful and scary?

~~~
username
No, the title sounds tongue-in-cheek to me.

~~~
mikeash
To me as well, but that's a separate question. Even joking, it's based on the
idea that nerds are scary and strange.

------
dpweb
"Government issued Blackberry". I wouldn't worry about them getting too
cutting edge.

I contracted for the US Govt. deep in their IT - several years ago. My
takeaways were that, they get a bad rap for being that much worse than the
private sector as far as knowledge and ability.

Also, the pay was higher for their regular employees than I expected, and the
benefits. It can be a great great package compared to the private sector. If
you're interested in job security (keep your head down for 20 years - can take
the monotony of the types of problems - retire early with a great deal). Job
security in the private sector went bye-bye a while ago.

I'm comparing with typical private sector IT jobs in the USA, not the bizarre
inflated SV world of the present time where kids seem to be laughing at 200k.

~~~
elektronjunge
I worked for a government agency as an intern, in software, for a few years
and they were issuing iPhones by about 2010 which is about the same time at
which Fortune 500 companies were doing it.

------
ALee
This is a pretty big deal. The ability to let individuals just focus on their
work is important, but probably more importantly - the currency of Washington,
D.C. and government is communication. Like any large institution, there are
customs built in to tell stakeholders that this institution is here to stay.
Any slight changes are areas of interpretation for everyone involved.

But something as simple as this is a great way to communicate that things are
changing. It means that someone is so highly valued that they are important
(disregarding the condescending title). Because if there is one way people in
D.C. communicate, they communicate through how they dress.

------
alayne
It sounds like there still is a restrictive dress code: "He isn’t showing up
in a T-shirt, but he’s free to wear a wrinkled button-down and comfortable
pants."

------
dang
A dupe of
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8202827](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8202827).

~~~
SheepSlapper
I thought I read this before, with a different title...

------
codva
I was in the Social media office of the White House a couple of months ago.
It's in the Old Executive Building, not the West Wing. The office was
decorated like you would expect a social media office to be decorated, the
people all acted like you would expect, but they were all wearing suits.

It was a little weird.

------
josephschmoe
How programmers dress is a fascinating social topic.

Do they do it for the comfort? Maybe a little. The shoes yeah.

Is it a litmus test for the level of freedom management gives that department?
Of course it is. A sizable, well-dressed software engineering department is
usually a social indicator that the company is strong arming them. That means
they probably have lower quality work and are less happy. :(

The reason that brings this all about though? Belief. Many software engineers
believe that the way we do business is wrong - that formalities are useless
and that you should care about the end product. If you're willing to let
business deals fail because the other guy was wearing a polo and not a suit,
your company deserves to fall apart. We don't care about giving a good
impression - we care if the product gives a good impression. We're just the
delivery mechanism.

------
falsestprophet
I wonder whether his open mindedness with regard to styles of dress extends to
software developers who would be happier wearing informal attire (especially
in the West Wing of the White House of all places).

------
Htsthbjig
Wow, it must be the "day of the children" or something for letting 5 years old
write the titles in Wired.

------
yongjik
Next: Wired Gives Up on Making Headlines Like Adults

------
kelukelugames
Good article but the title makes it sounded a lot more exciting.

Basically the government is compromising on a few perks.

