Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

electronconf.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

221–230 of 339 posts

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#221

Post by selllikesybok »

julianmarq wrote: post #215
selllikesybok wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume I mean, contrary to my intent, that the units are individuals rather than groups, perhaps. To restate again, for clarity: 1 type + 1 type = 2 types 2 types > 1 type 1 type = 1 type How is this false? --- I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works.

> 1 type + 1 type = 2 types > 2 types > 1 type > 1 type = 1 type Yep, that is good and I agree with that, I'll let it pass that i wasn't what you were saying earlier giving the context. But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1". > I am not sure what to say to your second point. I didn't make up the definitions, or the way language works. I…

>I'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.

You said, if I understood correctly, that the definitions meaning "there are essential qualities applicable to all members of a group" was the only relevant definition for purposes of this discussion.

I said, no, the other definitions are complementary, and must be considered.

You said no, they should not be considered.

I am unclear on how this is not stifling to the discussion.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#222

Post by panzer_wyrm »

robspychala wrote: post #59
tjpnz wrote: post #18

This may be an unpopular opinion but I still don't understand why diversity even matters here - shouldn't it be the merit of the ideas and the presentation skills of the speakers?

on face value you can't argue with your logic but if you want to play the long game and help create and contribute to an industry that includes people from all demographics than this is a very smart move. and more people included in your sample, more chance of finding amazing A++ engineers that can help the industry, your dev platform, etc...

And what do you do if you want the best, no matter how the demographic dices roll?

Come on. What github is doing is both screwing up the competent women and the competent men this way.

By throwing a diversity bone after a blind audition you actually rob any future woman of the feeling that she earned her place there and was not gifted to her.

This year men are the best election developers. Next - there may be one or two. That would have been thought of and perceived as equal. Now it is over. Forever and ever.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#223

Post by macspoofing »

selllikesybok wrote: post #117
macspoofing wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Definitely not diversity of ideas.

Is there evidence of that? Not clear from the discussion of the list how much diversity of thought there was. Also, generally, the amount of diversity in thinking that is possible when you are talking about a conference for the discussion and promotion of a single technology cant be that much in the first place.

I would love to be wrong about this.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#224

Post by selllikesybok »

julianmarq wrote: post #218
selllikesybok wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me know if that ever actually happens. I'd be happy to discuss when it does.

> Let me know if that ever actually happens. As I knew, this is what you hope starts happening. So don't pretend that what you want is diversity, it was patently obvious from your first statement that it isn't what you want, and your backpedaling in every single reply didn't work. Glad you're back to your original intent, though, it's honest.

There have been many open submission conferences with speakers who are all male. And all white. And a few both.

Are there any open submission conferences which have had speakers who are all WoC?

It seems like a distraction to discuss hypothetical diversity problems that don't exist, instead of real ones that do.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#225

Post by afarrell »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #94
cygx wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an effort to make the programming community more accessible to currently underrepresented groups. Expanding the base is one way to improve a meritocracy.

What you describe is an important goal, but I agree with protomyth[0] - they're doing it backwards. If you want to make the industry more accessible to minorities, focus on making information and training more accessible to them, and not on status rewards (being a speaker on a conference is first and foremost a status reward). -- [0] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14481090

The argument here is representation. See also: Uhura from Star Trek.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#226

Post by leereeves »

rayiner wrote: post #160
Tehnix wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I definitely agree with this view, and it's perhaps also why I really can't understand choices like these, to cancel an event, because of the genders of the people speaking? Why does that even matter? If what another commenter mentioned[0][1], that they did blind-reviews of the papers, then this is actually quite appalling to me and sends the reverse signal that we don't really care about your paper, as long as you f…

PC culture is a frustrated reaction to how fucked up America is with regard to race. Look at the income/health statistics between blacks and whites, or go live in an inner-city. It's mind blowing. It's a problem we created as a society and we're not doing anything to fix it. So we've resorted to counting the number of different color people at coding conferences.

It's a reaction that only makes the problem worse.

Imagine the reaction if a group of male organizers had decided too many women were speaking, and you'll understand how other people feel about this decision.

When sexism like this is tolerated it only discredits any claim that equality and fairness are the goals.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#227

Post by cc81 »

zzalpha wrote: post #208
PrimHelios wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're pushing to have unqualified people on your board simply because they're women, your company will die. Aside from that, why strive if I know I have a good chance of getting a position even without any kind of merit? Fucking hell, I want to be seen as more than just a disabled trans woman, I want people to look at the shit I've done and say "Wow, she's really awesome, let's hire her/accept her into our colleg…

Oh come on. Anyone seriously espousing the idealism of pure "meritocracy" needs to put aside their gradeschool naivete. Next you'll start quoting Anne Rand back to us. It's one of those ideas that sure sounds good... I mean, who can possibly argue with the idea that they should pick the best speakers with the best content? Until you actually think about it. What you fail to recognize is that, unless you can find me q…

In life in general sure but in cases like these a blind review process (that I think they used) should be good enough.

I mean it is pretty odd that you would do a call for papers and pick out those you liked the most without knowing race or gender but then replace some just because it turns out they had the wrong gender/skin color/whatever.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#228

Post by [deleted] »

cc81 wrote: post #227
zzalpha wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on. Anyone seriously espousing the idealism of pure "meritocracy" needs to put aside their gradeschool naivete. Next you'll start quoting Anne Rand back to us. It's one of those ideas that sure sounds good... I mean, who can possibly argue with the idea that they should pick the best speakers with the best content? Until you actually think about it. What you fail to recognize is that, unless you can find me q…

In life in general sure but in cases like these a blind review process (that I think they used) should be good enough. I mean it is pretty odd that you would do a call for papers and pick out those you liked the most without knowing race or gender but then replace some just because it turns out they had the wrong gender/skin color/whatever.

[deleted]

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#229

Post by zzalpha »

cc81 wrote: post #227
zzalpha wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh come on. Anyone seriously espousing the idealism of pure "meritocracy" needs to put aside their gradeschool naivete. Next you'll start quoting Anne Rand back to us. It's one of those ideas that sure sounds good... I mean, who can possibly argue with the idea that they should pick the best speakers with the best content? Until you actually think about it. What you fail to recognize is that, unless you can find me q…

In life in general sure but in cases like these a blind review process (that I think they used) should be good enough. I mean it is pretty odd that you would do a call for papers and pick out those you liked the most without knowing race or gender but then replace some just because it turns out they had the wrong gender/skin color/whatever.

I mean it is pretty odd that you would do a call for papers and pick out those you liked the most without knowing race or gender but then replace some just because it turns out they had the wrong gender/skin color/whatever.

It's actually totally understandable.

Let me explain.

The conference organizers clearly have diversity as a goal.

In their naivete, they thought to themselves "we want equality for everyone! I know... let's just make this a pure meritocracy! Then there won't be bias and everyone will be happy!", and so they used a blind review process.

Of course, it didn't dawn on them at the time that if you took a blind random sampling of programmers, had them write presentations, and then approved them, you'd end up with a lack of diversity because the industry itself has an almost comically absurd lack of diversity.

So unless the average skill level of individuals in minority groups is extemely disproportionately higher than the average population (which rather contradicts the idea that race or gender don't impact skill), they would be poorly represented because they're poorly represented in our community in general.

So after approving their blindly reviewed set of presentations, they realized, shoot, they have an alarming lack of diversity in their presentations (read the above two paragraphs again if you don't understand why).

And so now they have to go back to the drawing board. All because they didn't understand population statistics.

Re: ElectronConf postponed until a “more diverse slate of speakers” can be delivered

#230

Post by rayiner »

leereeves wrote: post #226
rayiner wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

PC culture is a frustrated reaction to how fucked up America is with regard to race. Look at the income/health statistics between blacks and whites, or go live in an inner-city. It's mind blowing. It's a problem we created as a society and we're not doing anything to fix it. So we've resorted to counting the number of different color people at coding conferences.

It's a reaction that only makes the problem worse. Imagine the reaction if a group of male organizers had decided too many women were speaking, and you'll understand how other people feel about this decision. When sexism like this is tolerated it only discredits any claim that equality and fairness are the goals.

There is a difference between superficial equality and structural equality. Consider a society where 50% of tech CEOs and programmers were women, but it was socially acceptable to deny any given woman or man a job based on his or her gender. Such a society would have structural equality but not superficial equality.

What you're talking about is superficial equality. Your point is correct within that narrow context, but I don't think superficial equality is all that interesting.

Post reply on HN