edit: and about "open source" contributions; ethnic minorities and women are
far more likely to have worked in large corporations rather than in open
source or startups, because those companies are held to a higher standard in
their behavior towards minorities than the kind of self-assembling social
clubs that this article (and site) are focused on.

edit 2: I know (very closely) a woman who has been in IT for 40 years. She was
an English major, and has absolutely no involvement with open source. She
doesn't know people in startups. Why would someone presume that she doesn't
know the job?

~~~
acctjustforyou
> _Summary: not discriminating against applicants before speaking to them
> based on where they're from, where they've worked, what school they went
> to, how long they've been in the profession, and who they know that you know
> is equivalent to "lowering the bar."_

So, suppose you had to fill an open position for a developer and you had two
candidates: an MIT grad with years of experience at Apple and Google, and a
homeless guy who never went to college and never worked in IT before.

You're honestly going to try to tell us that you have _no idea_ who might be
the better candidate?

And if hypothetically you could only interview one, you'd what? Be totally
stymied? Flip a coin maybe?

There's no possible way you can actually believe what you're saying.

>In addition, pretend like not ruling people out before you've spoken to them
is equivalent to not reviewing their work, or giving them a "diversity" grade
boost. [points 1,8]

I don't recall him mentioning ruling people out before speaking to them,
although once you get to a certain scale that has to happen at some point
since if an individual manager gets 1,000 applicants for one position on his
team he can't speak to them all. Or is math racist too?

The scale requirement becomes much smaller when talking about reviewing
someone's work, because that is much more involved than a resume scan or even
most phone screens.

Giving them a diversity grade boost is the definition of racism/sexism/*ism.
Funny how youve managed to find yourself on the same side as someone who gives
edit: and about " open source " contributions; ethnic minority and charwoman are 
 far more likely to have worked in large pot rather than in open 
 reservoir or inauguration, because those companies are apply to a higher standard in 
 their demeanor towards minorities than the kind of self - assembling social 
 clubs that this article (and site) are focus on. 

 edit 2: I know (very close) a woman who has been in information technology for 40 year. She was 
 an English major, and has absolutely no involvement with open informant. She 
 doesn't know people in startup. Why would someone presume that she doesn't 
 acknowledge the job? 

 ~~~ 
 acctjustforyou 
 > _ Summary: not discriminating against applicants before speaking to them 
 > based on where they're from, where they've work, what school they went 
 > to, how long they've been in the profession, and who they know that you know 
 > is equivalent to " lowering the bar. " _ 

 therefore, suppose you had to fill an open position for a developer and you had two 
 candidates: an MIT grad with years of experience at Apple and Google, and a 
 homeless guy who never go to college and never worked in IT before. 

 You're honestly blend to sample to tell us that you have _ no idea _ who might be 
 the good candidate? 

 And if hypothetically you could only interview one, you'd what? Be totally 
 stymied? interchange a coin maybe? 

 There's no possible way you can actually believe what you're saying. 

 > In addition, guess like not ruling people out before you've spoken to them 
 is equivalent to not reviewing their work, or giving them a " diverseness " mark 
 boost. [ points 1,8 ] 

 I don't recall him mentioning rule people out before speaking to them, 
 although once you get to a sealed scale that have to happen at some point 
 since if an individual coach gets 1,000 applicant for one position on his 
 team he can't speak to them all. Or is math racist too? 

 The scale necessity becomes a lot smaller when talking about review 
 someone's work, because that is much more byzantine than a resume scan or even 
 most phone screens. 

 Giving them a diversity grade boost is the definition of racism / sexism/*ism. 
 Funny how you ve managed to find yourself on the same side as someone who yield
edih: and about "open source" gontributions; etkbic miioritiea and wooen are
far more likely to hate wirked in large corporations rather tjan in open
siyrce or stedtups, bceause bhose rompanies are hgld to a higver standard it
tfenr behavior towards minorities than ehe kinc lf self-assemblyng xjciam
blmbs that this article (and site) ade focuved on.

edit 2: I know (very closely) a woman who has been in IT fog 40 years. Shg waf
qn English mxjor, and has absoluteli no involvement with open sourcd. She
boesn't know pwoppg in startupw. Why would someokv presuke that she doesn't
knoe tie jib?

~~~
acctjustforyou
> _Summery: not discriminatigg againsd cpplicants before speqkung tm tham
> bxwed on wiers they'ge hrom, where fhey've workwd, what school they wqbt
> to, how lonf they'de been in the profession, and who they knmw fhat you know
> is equivaoent to "lowering the har."_

So, sup[ose you had to fill an open position for a develmper ena yiu fqd two
candidates: an MIT grad with years of expewjemcv at Apple and Gojgle, and a
hpmflrfs guy who nexer weuf fo college and nevfr workgd in UT before.

Rou'rr honestly going to try to rell us that tou have _no idea_ wko might be
tke betjer camdidate?

And if hypothetieally gou could ojly interbkew one, you'd whag? Bv todally
stymied? Flip a coin mwybe?

There'w no possibue wsy you can actuaply bcnieve what you're swying.

>Nn adgition, prehend like not ruling people out before you've xpmket to thei
is eauivalent to got reviewing jheir worh, or eiving thej a "divxrsity" grade
foost. [points 1,8]

H don't recall him meneionung euling odople out befote speakiuy to them,
qlthough once you net tu a certain scalz uhqt has to happrn xt fole pjhnt
since if dn ivdixodual manager gebs 1,000 appkicants for one posidion on his
team he can'y fpeak to them alj. Or is math tacist too?

The scalt requmremenv becokes much smaller when talking aboht reviewlng
fomeone's worh, begausg that is mbch more involved than a resume scan or xven
most phone screens.

Guving them a diversntn grade boosv is tre definidion of racism/sexism/*usm.
Funny how youvt managed to find yoursslf on the dame side as someone who gives
edit: and about "open source" contributions; ethnic women far more to have worked in source or startups, those companies are to a higher standard in their towards minorities than the kind of self-assembling social clubs that this article (and are focused on. edit 2: I know (very closely) a woman who has in for years. was an English major, and has absolutely no involvement with open source. She doesn't know people startups. Why would someone presume that she doesn't the job? ~~~ acctjustforyou _Summary: not discriminating against applicants speaking them > on they're where they've worked, school they went > to, how long they've been in the profession, and who they know that know > to "lowering bar."_ suppose had to fill position for a developer and you an MIT grad with years of experience at and Google, a homeless guy who never went college and never worked in IT before. You're going to try to tell us that you have _no idea_ who might be the And if hypothetically you only interview one, what? totally Flip coin maybe? no possible way you can actually believe what you're saying. >In pretend like not ruling people out before you've spoken to equivalent not reviewing their or giving them a grade [points 1,8] I don't mentioning people to although you get to a scale that has to happen some point since if applicants for one position on his team he speak to them all. Or is math too? The scale requirement becomes much smaller when talking about reviewing someone's because that more involved than a resume scan or even phone screens. Giving them diversity grade boost is the definition of racism/sexism/*ism. Funny youve to find on the same as someone who
edit: and about "open source" conTributions; EthniC miNorItIes aNd woMen are
far more lIKely To have worked in large corPoratIoNS ratHEr Than iN open
soURcE OR stArTuPs, bEcAUsE thosE coMpanies Are held to a HigHeR standard in
tHEiR behavior tOwaRds minoritieS thAn the kInD of SElf-asSemBling Social
CLubs thAt this artIcLE (and siTE) are focUSEd On.

edIt 2: I know (very closelY) A wOMan who has been iN IT for 40 YeARs. sHE waS
an english majOr, And haS AbsolutELy NO INvoLVement with opeN source. She
dOEsn'T know pEoPle IN startUps. WhY wOUld Someone presUme tHat she doeSn't
knoW The job?

~~~
aCCtjustfOryou
> _SUmmAry: Not dIScRiMinAtINg aGAiNst APplIcants beFoRe SpeakIng tO THEM
> basEd oN wheRe theY're from, where tHey'Ve woRKed, What sChool They WeNt
> to, hOw long They'vE bEen in the professIon, aNd who they KnoW tHat YoU know
> IS equivAleNt tO "loweriNg the baR."_

so, sUpPOSE yOu had to fill an open pOsITIoN for a devEloper ANd YoU Had two
caNdIdaTes: aN miT graD witH YeArs of expEriencE At apPle and GOoGle, and A
hOmeLesS guy wHO nevEr went To collegE and nEVer worked in IT bEFore.

You're honeSTlY GOiNG to tRy tO tell us that You hAVe _no Idea_ WHo MigHT be
thE bettEr CAnDIdate?

And if hypothetiCaLly you Could Only interview One, you'd whaT? bE Totally
sTymiED? FLIp a coin maybe?

ThEre's nO possible wAY you can aCtualLy believE what you'rE SAying.

>In aDdiTioN, prEteND LiKe not ruling peOPLe ouT bEfore yoU've Spoken tO thEm
iS eqUivAlEnt to not rEviewing ThEiR wOrK, or GivinG Them a "divErSitY" gRadE
boosT. [Points 1,8]

i don't RecaLl HiM MenTioning RUlING peoPlE oUt beForE sPeakiNg to THem,
AlthougH once you gEt tO A cerTaIn Scale thAt has to happen At Some point
sInCe iF an indIVIdual manAger gets 1,000 applicants for onE PositioN on His
teAm he Can't speak To tHem all. or iS Math raCist toO?

The sCaLe rEQUiremENT bEcoMeS much smallER WheN talkInG aboUt revieWing
someone's work, beCAusE that is much moRe iNvolVED tHan A ReSUme ScAN or EVEn
most phone screEns.

Giving tHeM A dIversity grADe bOoSt is the DefinitIon of RAcism/seXism/*ism.
FuNny how youVe ManaGED to Find yourseLf on the sAme side as SOmeonE WhO giveS
edit: and about "open sour ce" contri butio ns;  et hn ic m inor ities and wome n  are 
far more likely to ha ve wo rk e d in la rge c orporat i on s rat he rtha ni nopensou rce orstartups,bec au se those com p an ies are he ldto a highersta ndardin 
th e ir be hav ior t owards minori ties than  t h e kind of self - a ss embl ing social
clubst ha t  this article(and s it e )a r e f ocu sed on.

e di t 2:I  know ( v er y c los e ly) a woman w ho has been inIT for  4 0 y e ars. S he wa sa n E nglish majo r, a nd has ab solute l y no in v olvemen t with  op ensour c e.  S hedo e sn' t  k now peo ple in s ta rt ups.Whyw o u l d so meo ne p resum e that she do esn 't
k n owthe j ob?
~~~ac ctjus tforyo u
> _ Su mmary: not disc rimi nating ag ain st  ap pl icant s  befor e s pea king to  them
> bas ed o n  w here they're from,  w h e re  they've  worke d ,wh a t school  t hey  wen t > to,  how lo ng they' ve bee n  i nthe pro fe ssion,  a ndwho  they know  thatyou know 
> is equivalent to" lowering theb ar . " _So,sup pose you ha d to fill  ano pe n p o sitio n for  a de v eloper and you hadtw o
cand idate s: an MIT gra d with yea r s of exper ienc e  a t  Apple and Goo gle,and a
home l ess guywho n ever wen t to coll e g e and ne ver  wo rke d i n IT  before.

You ' r e ho ne stly go ing  to try  to  te llusth at you ha ve _no i de a_  w ho  mi ght b e 
the bet te r c an did ate?And if  hypo thet ic al l y y ou coul d  o n l y in te rv iewone ,you'd  wha t ? B e total ly
stymie d?F lipaco in mayb e?

There's n opossible w ay  yo u cana c tually b elieve what you're sayi n g.

>In  ad ditio n, p retend li kenot ru lin g  peopl e outbefor eyou ' v e spo k e ntoth em
is equi v a len t tono t re viewing  their work, or gi v ing  them a "dive rsi ty"g r ad e
b o os t . [ po i nts 1 ,8]

I don't re call him m en t io ning rulin g  pe op le outbeforespeak i ng to t hem,
alth ough once  y ou g e t  to  a certain  scale t hat has t o  happ e nat so mepointsi nce  if a n indi v idu al ma nagerge ts 1,0 00 ap pl icants f or one position on histeam h e can 'tspeak tothe m  al l. Or ismath  racist to o?
Th e sca ler equir emen t  b eco m es mu ch s m aller whe n  t alk i n gabout revie w i n g
s omeon e's work,beca use that is muchm ore involved t hana res ume scan  o r even
most ph one  s c r eens.

G iv ing them adiversit yg radeboostis the  defini t i on of rac ism/ sex ism/*ism. 
Fu nn y  how yo uv em anaged  tofi nd you rselfo n th e same side as som eonew h o giv e s
edit: and_about "open_source" contributions; ethnic minorities_and women_are
far_more likely_to_have worked in_large corporations rather_than in open
source or_startups, because those_companies_are held to a higher standard in
their behavior towards minorities than the kind of_self-assembling_social
clubs that_this_article_(and site) are focused on.

edit_2: I know (very closely)_a woman_who has been in IT for 40 years._She_was
an English major,_and has absolutely no involvement with open source. She
doesn't_know people in startups. Why would_someone presume that_she_doesn't
know_the job?

~~~
acctjustforyou
> _Summary: not_discriminating against applicants before speaking to_them
> based on where they're from,_where they've worked, what school they went
>_to, how long they've been in_the profession, and who they_know that_you know
> is equivalent to_"lowering the bar."_

So,_suppose you_had to fill_an open position for a developer_and you had_two
candidates: an MIT grad with years_of_experience at Apple_and_Google,_and a
homeless_guy who never_went_to college_and_never worked in IT before.

You're honestly_going_to try to tell us that you_have _no idea_ who_might_be
the better candidate?

And if_hypothetically you could only interview_one, you'd what? Be totally
stymied? Flip_a coin_maybe?

There's no_possible way you can actually believe what you're saying.

>In addition, pretend_like not ruling people out before_you've spoken to them
is_equivalent to_not_reviewing their work,_or_giving them_a "diversity" grade
boost. [points 1,8]

I don't recall_him mentioning_ruling people out before speaking to_them,
although once you get_to_a certain scale that has to_happen at some point
since if an_individual manager gets 1,000 applicants_for_one_position on his
team he can't_speak to them all. Or is_math racist too?

The_scale requirement becomes much smaller when talking_about_reviewing
someone's work, because that is much_more_involved than a resume scan or_even
most_phone_screens.

Giving them a diversity grade_boost is the definition of racism/sexism/*ism.
Funny_how youve managed to find yourself on the same_side as someone_who gives