1) Quotas for both genders, in the form that no more than, say, 60% of the employees of a company and no more than 60% of the employees in a given position may be of a given gender (with a threshold of maybe five persons in said positions before the quota kicks in).
2) Extension of said quotas to government agencies, tax-exempt societies and associations and students per university class.
3) Enforcement of the quota insofar as that ‘surplus’ members/employees of the ‘wrong’ gender have to leave the agency/society/company.
4) Empowerment of local governments to draft people from an under-represented gender into security relevant agencies (such as fire brigades, the military and the police) where necessary.
5) Empowerment of universities to draft under-represented students into classes requested by local businesses (such as science & technology, where necessary).
6) Enjoy the brave new world.
- it allows the expected situation to become unsurprising/usual.
- at the team level, it encourages to select the non-white-guy to be the speaker (in order to maximize the chance to pass the selection)
They don't call it a quota, but it certainly fits the loose definition - they wanted more females, and so they hired junior female engineers when they could have hired more senior male engineers. I'm sure that at some point, a team of theirs was considered at full capacity and some male resume was passed over that might have otherwise been considered.
But it's really, really hard to argue that they did something offensive there. They created more engineering talent, got some good press out of it, and I wouldn't be surprised if it had some sort of small effect in making programming a more viable-seeming career choice for women.
Which is very similar what institutional sexism is - except that women deal with it to a much greater degree than men.