Reading the full article, it strikes me how you can be "inclusive" if you are constantly highlighting the differences. The fact, for example, she dismisses PRs or code reviews because made by white males. Or the blog post on her first deliverable, rewritten by a white male. I don't see what could be the benefit to point that out in every sentence: that all of that is made in malice because of gender and race?
If I had a white male colleague who would constantly point out - in a work environment - that a PR should be dismissed because made by a woman or that a deliverable sucks because made by a black guy, I would not tolerate that behavior for a second. I don't get why the opposite should be considered "inclusion and safety".
[...] For my first few pull requests, I was getting feedback from literally dozens of engineers (all of whom were male) on other teams, nitpicking the code I had written.
[...] Shortly after this happened to me, the code review feature was prioritized. This functionality was rolled out internally pretty quickly. From that point on I didn't get dogpiled anymore [...]
Re: who cares if they were all male? If I open a PR and I get dozens of feedback, either they are legit feedback or not. Or maybe they are all sexist comments, that you should absolutely report. But it sounds like the "all of who were male" wants to imply a specific subtext, but the accusation is neither explicit nor provides any justifications. Saying it in other words: if a colleague would say "I am getting feedback from literally dozens of engineers (all of who were black women)", wouldn't that raise an eyebrow or more?
I took it to indicate that she believes that she is getting so much 'feedback' specifically because of what she is and what she's trying to do.
The fact that all of the people offering feedback were male is weak evidence in favour of this (consider that much of her immediate team is female). She offers as another piece of evidence that she compared notes with a colleague with a similar background who was male and who wasn't getting the same level of attention.
> Re: who cares if they were all male? If I open a PR and I get dozens of feedback, either they are legit feedback or not.
If you're working somewhere where you and people like you are getting 20 people peering over your shoulder uninvited and criticizing your every move and people of a different group only have 2 people reviewing their code then you can legitimately claim to be working in a hostile environment.
Code reviews are always a mixture of objective and subjective feedback, and having to consider detailed comments (objective, subjective, substantive, trivial) from a large number of people not directly involved and without appropriate context would be a stress on anyone (not to mention is a simple drain on productivity).
On a purely technical note, she says nowhere that the PRs should be dismissed because they were from men. I think that was something you read into it. At issue was the unusual quantity of the feedback.
> if a colleague would say "I am getting feedback from literally dozens of engineers (all of who were black women)", wouldn't that raise an eyebrow or more?
If it were fact, then I would assume that there was some way in which this colleague had upset a group of black women. I think a similar conclusion is being offered here (although given the likely employment ratios the black women theory would have a whole lot more evidence).
For purposes of neutrality, she shouldn't mention the gender or race of the reviewers. In many places that I have worked, I do not even know the ethnicity of my coworkers. As an aside, I am not white and honestly believe there is more to ethnicity than skin color.
@kybernetikos definitely already said it, but to be clear:
That doesn't sound like she dismissed the PRs, or that she dismissed them for gender reasons, and there's no mention of race anywhere in there.
> if a colleague would say... wouldn't that raise an eyebrow or more?
Yes, yes it would. I'd look at the feedback, the thing receiving feedback, and then go ask the people who gave the feedback. Then I'd probably circle back around to the colleague for more information, because clearly, something is wrong, but from just that information? Cannot tell what.
> For my first few pull requests, I was getting feedback from literally dozens of engineers (all of whom were male) on other teams, nitpicking the code I had written. One PR actually had over 200 comments from 24 different individuals.
> The fact, for example, she dismisses PRs or code reviews because made by
> white males. Or the blog post on her first deliverable, rewritten by a
> white male.
I really feel like you are injecting your own issues into this. For example,
here is an excerpt that you're referring to:
> However, it soon became apparent that this promising start would not last
> for long. For my first few pull requests, I was getting feedback from
> literally dozens of engineers (all of whom were male) on other teams,
> nitpicking the code I had written. One PR actually had over 200 comments
> from 24 different individuals.
First off, nowhere does she reference the race of the engineers that were
commenting on the PRs. The fact that you jump into this talking about white
males this and white males that, seems like you are bringing your own
baggage with you into this discussion.
Secondly, it seems more like her issue was that she felt like she was getting
dogpiled on via the PR. I've never worked anywhere that I felt the need to
start critiquing the code of people from other teams who were working on
systems that I might not even have experience with. It especially seems not
very inclusive to make a new hire feel like she is immediately on the
defensive. 200 comments seems excessive. (Granted we can't see the content so
it may not have been all unjustified, but still).
Here is the other excerpt that you reference:
> The post was submitted for editorial review. It was decided that the tone
> of what I had written was too personal and didn't reflect the voice of the
> company. The reviewer insisted that any mention of the abuse vector that
> this feature was closing be removed. In the midst of my discussions with
> the editorial team, trying to reach a compromise, a (male) engineer from
> another team completely rewrote the blog post and published it without
> talking to me.
Again, there is a lack of reference to whether or not the male is white or
not. We can assume that he is probably white, but there isn't even a hint as
to his actual race.
Also, like the previous excerpt the gender of the person is referenced to drive
home the whole 'inclusiveness' angle. The real issue here isn't that the
offender is male, but that he apparently went around her while her content was
tied up in editorial review. That seems like a total dick move, IMHO.
To be fair, it's possible that to also blame the managerial systems in place
for allowing this too. How was this person able to publish the blog post while
a "competing" version of the post was held up in editorial review (though
presumably not fully rejected)? Was this a mistake due to poor communication?
> I've never worked anywhere that I felt the need to start critiquing the code of people from other teams who were working on systems that I might not even have experience with.
This is probably a side effect of how GitHub evolved. Watching some of their earlier talks and comparing that with how they function now, the introduction of managers was a recent addition. It probably didn't change how past engineers operate in the company, e.g., "chime in if your comments are relevant, even if you aren't necessarily requested to chime in."
It was common in early Google as well...I knew someone fairly high up that used to leave drive-by code reviews for people on other teams. It wasn't done much by the time I joined in 2009, and became explicitly taboo by 2010 or so.
I think it's actually because when you're in a young fast-growing company, the success of the company is literally everyone's responsibility. You have both the means (because the company hasn't yet ossified into management structures and the codebase is small enough that most people can be familiar with all of it) and the incentive (because a large portion of your compensation is in stock options that are only worth something if you succeed) to materially affect the company's prospects. And many people who join in that environment don't get the memo about when it becomes inappropriate for a new, larger structure.
Even at a larger size, though, it can still work – but the need for effective communication and diplomacy is even greater. You also want to be sensitive that you probably do not have all the context you might need when reviewing another project's code, so humility is important. When I do this, it's usually in the form of clarifying questions, suggestions, or requests.
> I've never worked anywhere that I felt the need to start critiquing the code of people from other teams who were working on systems that I might not even have experience with.
I've actually found myself in precisely this scenario. Last time it happened, it was because I was called upon to help try to talk some sense into a somewhat stubborn junior engineer who couldn't grasp that they were making sub-optimal and potentially dangerous decisions.
Because it's obvious that white males have all the power and are part of the patriarchy which oppresses all non white males.
It's so obviously correct that you can't even argue about it, and if you do (and you're white and male) you are mansplaining, and if you're not, you have internalized self hatred (which is the patriarchy fault, no less).
It's OK to promote Democrats internally at a company but if you're a Trump supporter you are EVIL. This is also obvious and requires no explanation and cannot be argued.
/s
In all seriousness, this stuff needs to stay out of the professional sphere. It's a swing back in the other direction of toxicity.
It's not a swing _back_: it's just a different axis altogether. Being narcissistic enough to insist that your ideological opponents are evil and that every forum is an excuse to root out wrongthink is an ancient tendency. It's pretty ideology neutral.
Fifty years ago people were doing it for not being a good enough Christian. Now it's for not buying into every detail of an incredibly specific (and quite flawed, imo) political philosophy, or even just claiming that perhaps it's counter productive to fight every battle simultaneously in every forum.
She wasn’t saying they should be dismissed because they were made by men. She was pointing out that they were extremely nit picky, and those who did so were men. And that her male colleagues had nowhere near that amount of nit pickiness on their requests.
If I had a white male colleague who would constantly point out - in a work environment - that a PR should be dismissed because made by a woman or that a deliverable sucks because made by a black guy, I would not tolerate that behavior for a second. I don't get why the opposite should be considered "inclusion and safety".