Can you imagine the next time the topic of gender or bamboo ceiling pay comes up, we can just hug it out... right? No. Real laws need to be enacted to enforce good social policies, with real consequences to bear for those who break it. Even more relevant today, there are reports of police 'throwing' down their riot shields to join protestors, only to shoot them with rubber bullets a half hour later. Don't be fooled by kumbaya moments, solidarity and collective bargaining is the answer. And that will lead us to enact laws that will benefit the people, as history has shown us again and again.
Let's form a tech union already.
Do you agree that convincing more people in the tech industry to genuinely understand the inequality that exists, and the value of inclusive practices, is a prerequisite to achieving the impactful policies you cited? How do we get laws enacted or create a successful tech union while the white and male majorities in tech continue to feel indifferent or only passively supportive of these policies?
The intent of my post is to persuade people like myself to care about social justice, with a specific emphasis on the tech industry, in order to get more people acting towards substantive change. Over and over again, I've seen presentations, seminars and studies fail to convince people that diversity and inclusion are issues employees everywhere needs to be personally invested in. Instead of these generic and emotionally distant approaches, I argue that we should look to real-life examples in our own workplaces.
You can't control who is applying to your job postings, but you can control who you reach out to to fill those positions.
If you can find people who don't fit the white male programmer mold and let them know about the jobs you have available, you're making the choice to prioritize diversity and inclusion in your teams.
How does your company iterate on the criteria used to find the "most qualified" candidate, especially without some way to compare the theoretical performance of the candidates you turned down to the real performance of the one you hired?
Claiming that standards are being lowered without any evidence is actually super racist.
We got a number of women applying for a front end position that we posted recently. None of them met the criteria that we asked for (5 years experience).
if you're legitimately using years of experience as a /hard/ cutoff, you're selecting for a very interesting signal that i would argue does not really optimize for candidate quality.
of course, your tech stack may warrant that requirement - i don't care - but this idea that "there are no qualified women/underrepresented groups" conveniently feeds onto itself - underrepresented groups see themselves as less likely to get the job, so don't apply, so don't build up resumes, probably leading to them exiting tech, etc.
at the end of the day, any true improvements to the system are going to make white men uncomfortable. yes, looking for candidates in particular fora associated with women/minorities/etc is positively boosting their chances vis-a-vis white men who aren't on those lists. that's the way it is going to have to be.
You should be looking because diversity of experience and opinion helps you build a more well-rounded product that your users can empathize with. Alternative and comprehensive perspectives will only help your group thrive and expand their reach as well as build a sense of community and culture on your teams.
When I use HN I don't wonder if the person that added the "reply" button is black or not... I don't really understand this. (I am black)
AFAIK, there is precious little actual research pointing either way. No doubt it's an extremely nebulous subject to study. Groupthink is certainly a thing, but I haven't seen strong evidence linking diversity hiring to the particular outcomes it is claims to treat.
Why do you need different skin colour or a vagina to have an alternative perspective? Do I think the same as all other white guys? Or do my blue eyes give me some unique insight that brown eyes (which are uncommon in this country) don't?
Here's the paragraph I want to highlight:
"Members of a homogeneous group rest somewhat assured that they will agree with one another; that they will understand one another's perspectives and beliefs; that they will be able to easily come to a consensus. But when members of a group notice that they are socially different from one another, they change their expectations. They anticipate differences of opinion and perspective. They assume they will need to work harder to come to a consensus. This logic helps to explain both the upside and the downside of social diversity: people work harder in diverse environments both cognitively and socially. They might not like it, but the hard work can lead to better outcomes."
Users may not consciously "empathize" with products, but they will be discouraged from using them when their experience using them is sub-optimal.
I 1) have huge background experience that I can transfer from 2) put in a lot of work to learn the subject before I start working 3) can tackle hard problems 4) I like hard problems.
I'm not sure you're looking for the right thing, in business terms. (NB, am not a woman, and this isn't about python per se, just making a point).
if by merit you mean competency in coding, and by years of experience you effectively mean years in coding, what you have stated here is directly in conflict with your requirements of 5 years of experience. nothing personal: them's the breaks.
admittedly, i get what you're trying to do - filter out bad candidates cheaply - but one ought to be able to introspect and see what they're saying (signaling) and what their actions show.
there are tons of very talented people leaving bootcamps, students out of colleges, etc. that are not going to every qualify, and may already be more sharp than some corporate drone with 5 years under his belt. hell, imagine all the first-job people with 1-2 years of experience who are hungry to level up their technical skills but can't get your job.
We already got lots of very poor candidates. I doubt removing the filters that we did have would have improved things.
Curious: what are you doing that you think 5 years' experience is necessary?
I presume those other things are not gender and skin colour, so what else is relevant, you tell me.
 almost missed out the 'not'. That would have made for fun fireworks.
The language had not been in use for X years, anywhere....