I usually hate doing this, but hey.
From that twitter:
>OG tech diversifier. GitHubber. Lecturer, UC Berkeley Haas School of Business.
And her github is: https://github.com/nmsanchez?tab=repositories
Two repositories have only a README, with, more or less, one line in it. One has a document about, not surprisingly, "diversity in tech" (and a code of conduct, ofc). And one is a fork. Her contributions to other projects sing the same song.
There is also a link there to her profile on https://medium.com/@nmsanchez
>Lecturer at UC Berkeley Haas School of Business. VP of Social Impact @ GitHub. Founder of Vaya Consulting. Purveyor of fine race/class analysis.
All this kind of behavior rubs me the wrong way so i won't even comment on it all.
To be honest i never had a high opinion of electron as a piece of software, so i don't know why i am even here. Sorry, i guess.
If the organizers actually cared about diversity beyond being optically correct to their peers, they would plan scholarships, flights, and lodging for a diverse population that cannot normally attend and event like this. Changing the speakers is the least effort, least effective method of adding diversity to our industry. They picked lazy and cheap over effective.
Frankly, the thought that a minority population can learn more for like minorities versus the original presenters is insulting and promotes a stereotype that closes more doors.
"white sausage party" - the thought you are advocating for diversity yet feel it ok to insult anyone's race / creed is troubling. People who insult others or make them uncomfortable with their slurs and jabs are the basis of the problem.
You're making an assumption here that the blind selection process will change or that added/substitute papers will not chosen by the same criteria. I'd wait for the followup, before judging the followup ;)
I agree it could be done in a better way, but hindsight is 20/20 and all that.
Clearly they won't be because now diversity is part of the additional criteria. I don't have to wait for the follow-up as they've already given the information.
Hindsight is 20/20, but we've had enough of these to actually analyze what the problem is. The organizers took the out the will require the least time and money but looks good on a brochure as opposed to furthers a goal. Having grown up and worked on a reservation, I am well aware of the nice photo op versus the effective program.
A couple other comments said that they did a blind review of the submitted papers. I can't think of a farer review process.
If in fact, the goal is to out on an enjoyable conference on the topic of Electron.
On the other hand, not caring about it and accepting that you're just getting dominant group X submissions is not a terrible thing. But we're social creatures - if everybody nearby is similar but different from you, either you'll feel uncomfortable, or have a bard-level charisma. So by allowing your group to become almost entirely X, you're enforcing the limit on your submitted papers pool even further.
(applies for many (all?) X, where X influences your life in any way)
Self-segregation, so in-vogue nowadays. That, by the way, is also not the way to do things.
> No review process is more fair. But if you end up with all-X selections from a blind-review, you may be advertising to a very homogeneous culture. As a result, you may be limiting your pool of ideas to choose from and reaching only a local maximum. There are usually great non-X engineers, as long as you reach out to them. Mixing multiple varied-X groups usually results in more diverse discussions and ideas, in my experience.
Moving the goalposts, as usual for this kind of crowd. What would be your way to blame everyone but the people not submitting papers if you were told that the organizers did reach out as many different groups as possible? I know of several, I'm just curious to read which you'll use.
If we were discussing what-ifs, then I'd say - tough, maybe next year they'll have more success. But that's not the situation we're discussing. An organiser responded with "we can do better, we're postponing", so I don't have really a comment to that.
Yeah... If a second room were confirmed, your rationalizing by saying that talks wouldn't be dropped is baseless speculation.
Maybe the solution is to stop being racist and sexist.
And I agree, asymmetry is part of the problem. As a white male, there's not a lot of derogatory terms regarding my skin color/sex that I'll get upset about. But there are tons of derogatory terms for minorities and historically oppressed groups of people where those words will carry a weight that I've never experienced.
I recommend reading
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism
And then
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sexism
Of course, it's a complex topic, and there's a lot more great material which would help you get a better understanding.
While particularly focused on a specific type of racism in the US, includes a decent 101 on racism generally - https://medium.com/@absurdistwords/how-to-discuss-race-with-...
The very first definition in your own link on racism:
> : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
Inherent inferiority, I'd assume, fits within that mind frame.
As for sexism, the second definition.
> : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
Now you'll start thinking of ways to complaint to the dictionary so that those definitions can be changed in a way that it's only about "minorities", I'm sure.
Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior.
Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
That you don't see it is framed as a question. Ok, look at it harder and come back to me when you have an actual answer instead of a question on your own reading capacity.
> Like, saying all-white is inferior to mixed is not the same as saying white is inferior.
Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking.
> Also, do recall usages b and c, and that they are important to consider, and specifically see my third link for better explanation of how.
You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
To restate:
"I'm not sure how saying that a non diverse group is inferior to a diverse group is equivalent to saying that the specific elements making up the non diverse group is inferior[. Could you please clarify]?"
Thought it was implied. Sorry to be unclear.
>Yes, it is, that's exactly what it is. I'd ask you which mental hoops led you to think it isn't but I know every single one of them will be a fallacy so I won't bother asking.
You haven't added anything here, just restated your original thinking that I don't get.
Here's what makes sense to me:
1 + 1 = 2 1 < 2 1 = 1
>You don't get to tell me which definitions to use. And I'm not reading some rant rationalizing why racism and sexism is good based on the target.
It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion.
If you read the third link, that's so not an accurate assessment of it's contents.
No, no, you're doing a false equivalency. This is what you're saying:
1+1=2 but 2>2 if the second 1 is of a different race/sex/orientation/etc.
> It's not that there are more than one competing definition. There are several complimentary ones and ignoring the rest does not promote better discussion.
... According to you.
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.
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'm not arguing that the definitions exist. I'm arguing your assessment that only using a particular one stifles discussion.
But it is what I said.
>But it still doesn't justify postponing/cancelling something just because it's "1", it's discrimination against that "1".
As to whether it is appropriate to postpone or cancel the event, I'd say that's up to the organizers, their goals, etc. If they specifically only want to put on a >=2 event, and they cannot, the justification seems adequate.
I'm not sure how, in that context, it equated to discrimination. I'd expect them to have cancelled regardless of the "1" in question, in this case.
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.
Like, freaking out about having to think about it. About not being able to sail through life without ever having to.
No, this stuff doesn't belong in HN, I don't accept it; this isn't tumblr.
Nobody is complicit of anything just for existing. At risk of invoking Godwin's law, that's exactly what the nazis said about every jew, including children.
> About not being able to sail through life without ever having to.
Yeah, let's not pretend you aren't a person who's had so much privilege that the biggest thing you think to fight about online is the diversity quota about some conference in an emerging (bad, but that's IMO) technology.
Like you just did with your comment.
Counterpoint: no, it doesn't. Because, being against racism against white people or sexism against men is not the same as being in favor of racism against non-white people or sexism against women. You're doing a false dichotomy.
> Like you just did with your comment.
Good thing I'm not in the USA and I'm not white, then. Now you'll tell me I have "internalized racism."
I'm also gay, facing actual discrimination because I can't even get legally married in my country.
And none of that makes retaliating to racism and sexism with racism and sexism ok. Nor it does retaliating homophobia with heterophobia, of course.
And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity.
But no one's saying (well, not anyone on HN, anyway, and not most people on Tumblr) that white people or me should be persecuted. Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others.
How you get to Nazis from that, I don't know.
Still arguing about complicity just out of existence. Last time I'm replying to you because you won't understand, but at least now my comment is just as visible as yours.
> And to the degree one benefits, and takes that for granted, and perceives the calling out of those benefits as a form of persecution, then yes, there's a degree of complicity.
Again, calling out unfair benefits is not bad. Attacking the people directly based on their race and sex is. But you do you and keep pretending I'm doing the first, it's the only way you can avoid the cognitive dissonance of your narrative after all.
> Just that they shouldn't be accorded undue advantages to the direct detriment of others.
Yeah, no, this isn't what's being argued here, again. Nobody should have inherent advantages over anyone else, that's a non-starter, it's obvious.
What I and the others you replied to here is calling out is a direct snub on a group of people because of their race and sex. If you don't see that as racism or sexism (or are selectively pretending that those aren't bad things) doesn't matter: It is racism/sexism and they're bad things.
Now you'll tell me that you'd think they did the right thing and that you won't consider that a snub. And I sure will believe that.
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.
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.
This is the exact kind of bs response that I was expecting from somebody who doesn't really understand what's going on besides whatever the latest outrage article they just read said they should be outraged about.
The sailing through life bit was specific to the context of being untroubled by the need to examine ones relative privelege or lack of, and the structures affecting same.
Not to imply that not having to think a out these things means life is automatically easy. You can still get cancer, get hit by a bus, etc.
----
You say that if people were not so quick to call out perceived racism or sexism things would be better.
I say if people were not so quick to be personally insulted when perceived racism and sexism are called out, things would be better.
Did I misunderstand your point?
This wasn't enforced from outside. It's the organisers who agreed: yup, that's not what we want to do (https://twitter.com/nmsanchez/status/870811022306574336)
Stop for a moment, think of how you'd organise a conference. Is it different? Will people find it inviting? Will they find it interesting? Go ahead, and organise it! Every community and group of organisers can shape the events they create the way they want to. ElectronConf organisers made such choice.
For the people that worry so much about speakers... I haven't done many talks (2 bigger events), but if I heard my talk was delayed so the conference can be rebalanced / less of a white sausage party, I'd be glad. Others may not share that opinion. But don't assume everybody will.
Edit: Yes, there are better and worse ways to go about it. Realising too late and reverting the original list was not the best. Reaching out to / inviting diverse groups rather than fixing balance later would be better. Hope they learned and will do it better next year. Organisers which care about it from the beginning somehow manage to get a decent m/f split - both in the audience and in the speakers. (see linux.conf for a good example)
Edit2: A few people assume that talks will be dropped / replaced as a result. I don't know what the organisers are planning, but there's always an option of adding another room/stream. Until any talks are confirmed as dropped, this is just baseless speculation.