SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
In a stunning example of failure to understand the meaning of the word equality, Github's "social impact team" is now actively discriminating against people based on gender and skin color; white women in particular:
One insider criticized GitHub's "social impact team," which is in charge of figuring out how to use the product to tackle social issues, including diversity within the company itself. It's led by Nicole Sanchez, vice president of social impact, who joined GitHub in May after working as a diversity consultant.
While people inside the company approve of the goal to hire a more diverse workforce, some think the team is contributing to the internal cultural battle.
"They are trying to control culture, interviewing and firing. Scary times at the company without a seasoned leader. While their efforts are admirable it is very hard to even interview people who are 'white' which makes things challenging," this person said.
Sanchez is known for some strong views about diversity. She wrote an article for USA Today shortly before she joined GitHub titled, "More white women does not equal tech diversity."
At one diversity training talk held at a different company and geared toward people of color, she came on a bit stronger with a point that says, "Some of the biggest barriers to progress are white women."
From a site policy standpoint, this really makes me want to argue for finding another host for our rehash repository, enormous pain in the ass though that would be.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @07:49PM
It's racism pure and simple. If they're even *looking* at the races, genders, etc, of people they're hiring, they're discriminating. Blank the damned names out on the resumes before you give them to the people evaluating them. Things aren't going to improve "diversity" wise if you just discriminate differently, nor is your company going to get the best people. What the hell is wrong with these people?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @07:53PM
Also, I'm in favour of dumping GitHub and moving to another repo. You shouldn't reward racism with your business.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Post-Nihilist on Monday February 08 2016, @08:17PM
If they move they should avoid a using a site with a Contributor Covenant
So far this exclude:
GitLab : https://gitlab.com/gitlab-org/gitlab-ce/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md#code-of-conduct [gitlab.com]
CodePlex : https://www.codeplex.com/site/legal/conduct [codeplex.com]
Strangely that leave a choice between sourceforge and bitbucket
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @08:26PM
It does depend on the document. Nebulous documents that don't define specific, are completely open to interpretation, or try to control any behaviour outside the project are the problem. Something clear, concise, and limited could be tolerated.
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @08:32PM
To me, GitLab's in unacceptable:
sexual language or imagery
I'm not sure what their problem with sex is, and while it shouldn't generally be involved in most of the projects, that's too open to interpretation, meaning it *will* be abused. How about "This function is completely screwed"? Does that get me banned? How about someone taking offence to creating "services"? There have already been ridiculous events like changing things from "master/slave" to other (less descriptive) names.
(Score: 5, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Monday February 08 2016, @09:34PM
I'm currently working on a branch named jigglyboobs out of protest of CoC idiocy like that.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:23PM
Let me know when jigglyboobs becomes stable so I can stop checking it out ;-)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 10 2016, @04:52AM
here have already been ridiculous events like changing things from "master/slave" to other (less descriptive) names.
Specifically, in Apple's Swift programming language's unit tests.
A fucking unit test no one ever looks at anyways, people.
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Monday February 08 2016, @08:41PM
I should have linked that term to the specific definiton of what I had in mind : http://contributor-covenant.org/version/1/1/0/ [contributor-covenant.org]
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Monday February 08 2016, @10:01PM
Thanks, I didn't know there was an "official" "contributor covenant" and am a little surprised that it's as badly done as it is. I'll make the assumption that it has already been abused in the manner I described above.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @10:27PM
+1 for bitbucket, it allows anonymous bug reports. That is important to me, because I am a coward.
t. anonymous coward
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday February 09 2016, @08:18AM
Another choice would be to just host the repository directly on SoylentNews. It's just a repository, after all. Bugreports could be handled through a local Bugzilla install, or even just on the Wiki (by giving each bug a separate Wiki page in a category "Bugs", with additional categories "Open", "Closed", "Not a Bug" etc.)
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by Post-Nihilist on Wednesday February 10 2016, @01:26AM
The one click approach offered by those providers is tempting, but you are right, freedom should win over convenience.
Be like us, be different, be a nihilist!!!
(Score: 2) by SanityCheck on Monday February 08 2016, @09:47PM
I am glad I have already done so, but for different reasons. They appear to be drunk with power.
(Score: 3, Informative) by tibman on Monday February 08 2016, @11:44PM
I think they should keep git. They can just host the server themselves. https://www.linux.com/learn/tutorials/824358-how-to-run-your-own-git-server [linux.com]
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Monday February 08 2016, @08:00PM
If they're too stupid to mentally do this, without having to blank out bits of paper and spray-paint the candidates green, or whatever, then they shouldn't be hiring.
Or be allowed to hold down any adult job.
Do people REALLY need to be told to put their prejudices aside, or that they shouldn't even HAVE prejudices?
Even in courts, as a member of the jury, you're told to "strike that from the record", etc. and you have to act as if you NEVER knew that piece of information. Exactly the same.
Any adult should be able to do this, the same way they don't stare at people with disfigurement, or sigh because the person on crutches is taking a while to enter the room, or start talking over the guy with the stammer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @08:12PM
> Any adult should be able to do this,
Puh-lease. Spare us the arm-chair pseudo-intellectualism. It is beyond dispute that we are all affected by subconscious bias. The problem here is that people like you still think that if it isn't formal racism it isn't racism.
> Even in courts, as a member of the jury, you're told to "strike that from the record", etc. and you have to act as if you NEVER knew that piece of information. Exactly the same.
Your own example contradicts your point - lawyers deliberately do and say things that get "struck from the record" precisely because they know that no matter how rigorous the jury, those things can't be unheard. If a lawyer does it too much they'll get sanctioned by the judge too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 08 2016, @08:21PM
everybody's a little bit racist
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Monday February 08 2016, @08:31PM
You forgot the link [youtube.com]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Non Sequor on Monday February 08 2016, @08:40PM
As an upper class white male, I have been trained from birth at resume padding and reference finagling.
The people who won the last round of society have the upper hand at winning the next round of the rules are held fixed. Keep in mind that the rules are primarily a bozo filter; they really don't in any pick out the best people.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 1) by Arik on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:00AM
Fair point.
So let me ask you, Mr Privileged White Male, have you done anything yourself to alleviate this injustice? Have you, perhaps, volunteered to go to the nearest impoverished schools on your own time and teach these young people these tricks of yours? Or, hey, maybe you're a busy man you and you paid someone else to do that?
Cause if you really have done that, or anything like that, you have my admiration and respect.
But if you're just using that as an excuse to advocate for racist and discriminatory policies against people that share your skin tone (including the masses of poor folks that don't have anything like the advantages you claim) instead then my only question is how are you making money off it? Professional diversity consultant maybe?
If laughter is the best medicine, who are the best doctors?
(Score: 2) by Non Sequor on Tuesday February 09 2016, @02:21AM
No, I can't give up my privilege, it's one of the key things I've use to maintain the illusion that I'm a normally functioning adult. I'm not some paragon of virtue, I'm just trying to manage the damage here.
I don't believe in the ability of a hiring process to pick a so-called best candidate. I don't even believe in best candidates since intelligence saturates at a certain point, and what people mistake for significantly above average ability is just strategic use of certain types of intelligence. I don't make hiring decisions, although I have influence and I'd rather work with a diverse group and try to build up the people we can bring in rather than pick someone who checks off boxes for a hypothetical idealized candidate.
And yes, that means looking for diversity hires when the combination of several hires and departures have skewed the demographics in a particular direction. On paper, the hiring criteria won't be written that way, but I'll be thinking about it.
Write your congressman. Tell him he sucks.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Tuesday February 09 2016, @01:15AM
One problem, it is illegal. Disparate impact suits do not require a demonstration of intention to discriminate. Proving the physical impossibility of discrimination in the way you suggest isn't even a legal defense against the charge. If the numbers are wrong you can be sued and depending on the whim of the judge you can be ordered to pay up. You MUST discriminate to avoid being charged with discrimination, it really is a Catch 22 situation. You must carefully consider the race, gender identity, and ethnic background of each applicant and you must carefully keep records and be prepared to produce them on demand by the government. You must be racist or else you are a racist.
The current thinking of the diversity movement is that MLK's "I have a dream..." speech is now problematic and the wise would place a bet that the speech, any quotes carved on memorials, etc. will be purged within ten years. The first clue was that none on the Left quote from it anymore, only racists like Newt Gingrich do.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 10 2016, @10:22PM
While blanking the names out on the resumes may be helpful. How many whites graduate from the traditionally Black Universities? I'm assuming prior work history and education are required for a complete resume. Also, if someone graduated from a Latin American University that would probably be pretty easy to spot as well. It's hard to force someone not to discriminate.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"