Live data from Hacker News

Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

where.coraline.codes

201–210 of 572 posts

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#201

The main thing I've taken away from the whole github situation is that, as a tech company, you should just entirely stay away from public involvement in the social justice sphere. That doesn't mean exclusively hiring white men and sending out Kalanick-style emails; it means keeping your work environment as professional and politically neutral as possible unless absolutely necessary. My employer does a good job of thi…

The main takeaway should be a company has one obligation to you: a job to do and money to be paid. You as an adult bring your services to fix the problem in exchange for said compensation. Personal tesponbility is everything and Im glad she was fired. Individuals like her should be fired and removed from any workplace where they act as a menace to their coworkers.

> Im glad she was fired. Individuals like her should be fired

You can't comment like this here regardless of how strongly you feel or how wrong you think someone else is. Please read https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14704439.

Edit: since you've done this repeatedly and we warned you before, I've banned this account. If you don't want to be banned on HN, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whatever the perceived tone, what Caroline didn't do was suggest improvements, provide examples. It was a teachable moment. Seems to me she directly suggested the improvement, after explaining both the reason the existing version was bad and the reason the improvement was better (the two reasons being the same): Quoting directly from the issue she raised, which was not merely quoted but emphasized as a pull-quote i…

Okay. Continuing to quibble... She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly. To me, it's an example of "Guess what I'm thinking!" Or more famously, that UI designer who said "Don't make me think!" Granted, a "data scientist" should already know how to survey, be open to constructive criticism. I personally would have no idea how to ask the question. Though I'm not a data scientist, I can use go…

> She said what was wrong, but did not say what was right. Explicitly.

She explicitly stated both that including “transgender” as a gender identity option was wrong, and that the right way was to ask about transgender status as a seperate question.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#203

This is not a comment on the experiences described in the article, but it makes me extremely sad that the word "meritocratic/meritocracy" is used pejoratively, almost as if it were damning in itself. To me, meritocracy is something to be cherished, being far preferable to the systems that came before it, and being inherently anti -discriminatory. (Yes, people's hardships which prevent them achieving their full potent…

Have a look at this, by the guy who invented the word. Maybe it'll change your mind like it did mine.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2001/jun/29/comment

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#204
A key takeaway from this blog post is the important of communication skills. Be a professional in the workplace. Be sincere with your colleagues and avoid passive aggressive behavior. If you have an issue with a colleague, take it to them first before lodging a complaint with their manager.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#205
post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ehh... I can see it either way, honestly. I think the issues raised are worth discussing here. I don't know that the post itself is.

While it may seem like semantics, I think discussing the issues raised by the post is more or less discussing the post. I would go so far as to say that explicitly discarding the context of the post as many are doing is rude and ironically lacking in empathy. How can we say that the issues raised by something are worth discussing while simultaneously putting down the post?

Because we only have a single perspective on what actually happened in this instance. That perspective is selective and is motivated to tell the story a particular way. It might be right, but we do not have enough facts to know. So it's hard to know what the facts we can actually draw conclusions from. This makes a discussion of issues difficult because more time is spent on the identities of the participants rather than the actual underlying issues. It descends into being merely about GitHub vs. Coraline.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#206
post #87

This should not be flagged.

I'm sort of confused why this article was flagged as well. There's a highly political article, albeit in the other direction, on the front page: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14702676

There's a long-standing tradition of using flagging to suppress unpopular links. Seems like it still works.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#207

The main thing I've taken away from the whole github situation is that, as a tech company, you should just entirely stay away from public involvement in the social justice sphere. That doesn't mean exclusively hiring white men and sending out Kalanick-style emails; it means keeping your work environment as professional and politically neutral as possible unless absolutely necessary. My employer does a good job of thi…

> The main thing I've taken away from the whole github situation is that, as a tech company, you should just entirely stay away from public involvement in the social justice sphere. That doesn't mean exclusively hiring white men and sending out Kalanick-style emails; it means keeping your work environment as professional and politically neutral as possible unless absolutely necessary.

At my previous employer, we achieved a 50-50 gender balance on our engineering team. Not through identity politics, outreach initiatives, and politicking, but through professionalism and politeness.

We were able to attract many incredibly talented women and minority engineers, by just not being assholes and treating them like any other engineers.

In fact, for somewhat of a natural experiment: there was a bifurcation in our engineering organization, a split between the web dev side (our teams) and the functional programming side. The FP side was full of politicking. The FP side's morale was terrible.

It was kind of ridiculous. By the time I chose to move on from this company, four out of the six women in our engineering organization were backchanneling with me about how uncomfortable the women-in-tech political rhetoric made them feel. They didn't want to be singled out as special snowflakes. They didn't want everyone else wondering if they were just diversity hires. They just wanted to participate on an equal footing, with everyone else. The fact that they felt more comfortable talking to me, a senior engineer, than HR or the company's Womens' Group is fairly absurd.

You don't need all this campaigning and activism to achieve these goals. You just need to be good, competent, professional, and kind people. You need management that has no tolerance for asshole behaviour, regardless of whether it's an ism, or just an asshole. You need a company that notices and rewards good work, even (and especially!) from those people who would otherwise fade into the background.

Thing is, a lot of the complaints made by "SJWs" are legit! Racism sucks. Assholes making shitty comments suck. Favouritism and nepotism sucks. But all of these concerns are already dealt with by healthy norms of professionalism, and those norms do a lot better job of advocating fair treatment for everyone, than the activists seem to do.

The women on our team didn't want special treatment or top-down interventions. They just wanted to be treated like the equals that they were! They really appreciated the fact that, on our team, they got that, and it wasn't a big deal.

When you're facing a team, company, or culture that appears problematic, consider that instead of being sexist, management may just be shitty, incompetent assholes _in general_. Healthy, mature, capable, professional teams are not like this.

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#208
post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This one way street also extends to the way Coraline's accomplishments at GitHub are presented in the article. There's all of this talk about all of the code she pushed and all of the popular features she wrote, but there's no context as to whether or not those things were the metrics by which her performance was being measured, e.g. what her management was expecting her to do. So when the negative review is mentione…

You're saying: > no context as to whether or not those things were the metrics by which her performance was being measured But per the blog post: > Based on the positive feedback from my one-on-ones and how well I was tracking against the goals set for the next engineering level, I was hopeful of getting a promotion and a raise. I'm confused as to how one could be "tracking against the goals set for the next engineer…

That's addressed later by her boss:

> I brought up the fact that we had been actively working on improving that over the past several months and that I had been tracking well against the goals we agreed to, but she said that the review period was only through January so that progress didn't count.

So, the "tracking well" was in a 4 month span not in the review period.

Here's another question: Why were weekly one-on-one meetings happening to discuss these issues? Are weekly one-on-ones typical at GitHub?

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think you're correct here. As I've understood the concept for something like a decade, PIPs are almost universally understood to be a soft form of firing. The correct response to receiving a PIP, probably in most SV companies, is to start looking for another job. It's easy to turn your own logic back around on you. Since it's a more-or-less open secret that most PIPs are part of managed termination, every com…

"As I've understood the concept for something like a decade, PIPs are almost universally understood to be a soft form of firing." FWIW, they've never been at any company i've managed at, or org i've belonged to :) I certainly believe such companies exist, i'm not stupid. I just am not sure I believe they are as prevalent as you do. The only question in the room (from either HR or the manager) has always been "how do…

I'm not denying that you've worked in places where HR convinced line managers that PIPs were a "legitimate" management tool. But I am saying that in making that decision, HR at those places exhibited incompetence: they left a reasonable developer with significant professional experience in a position to wonder whether continuing to work on that team was rational.

More on-point for the thread: I don't think it's reasonable to argue that someone pointing this out is "cynical". :)

Re: Antisocial Coding: My Year at GitHub

#210
post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Meritocracy" is regarded with derision in no small part because what is actually meant by it, rather than what you describe, is "this person is similar to me and I like them, so I think they do a better job." It's the ingroup club made manifest. What you describe would be great, but it's not what "meritocracy" actually means in practice.

Then we need to call out fake meritocracy as such. I'm actually looking at this situation with some sort of confusion, because I've never seen proclaimed meritocracy to actually mean "boy's club". But then again, I'm a white caucasian heterosexual male, so maybe I just don't notice. (Previous sentence is meant literally, not ironically.)

You're right, we do need to call out fake meritocracy that way. And people do call out fake meritocracy as such. Here's a bunch: http://istechameritocracy.com/

What often happens, though, is that responses to these claims become these backhanded dismissals. "Oh, you're just overreacting." "Well, I don't see it." I'm a straight, white, cis dude, too, so for a long time it was hard for me to notice it. I promise you, there is a point--and maybe it's not one you will ever personally see, but it exists--where it becomes too big, too obvious to ignore.

Post reply on HN