Yeah, but people-based metrics are <i>subjective</i>, even if they have hard numbers stuck in there. That's the problem.<p>The mistake here is viewing the entire system as simple, instead of emergent. Emergent systems are not usefully measured by simplistic top-down metrics.<p>You have one piece of code, yep, you set up some measurements and have fun with it. You have a thousand programs, running across a hundred different platforms? <i>The idea that you can determine cause and effect by a simple top-down metric is a problem in itself</i>. Yes, you may be able to determine that overall the system is not working as you would like it to be, and you may certainly decide that some kind of action is required, but that gives you no clue whatsoever what the required changes would be! In fact, by looking from the top-down in an aggregate fashion, it's even arguable whether or not your metric is the one to be optimized!<p>That's the difference between complex systems and simple systems. Stop over-simplifying. We all might be able to agree that some aggregate statistic is out of whack. Maybe. But that's a freaking long way from actually knowing anything about the problem or what to start doing to address it. Instead, we wrap it all up like that answer is straightforward, wave our arms around, get all emotional, and demand action. This is not a recipe for success, whether in complex systems of programs or complex systems of people.
I can't express how infuriating I find the "we just need to treat everyone equally, that's it!" type of comments, and these analogies help me understand why. It's like saying "we just need to write maintainable modular code, that's it!"
Lots of human groups are underrepresented in technology (africans, older people, latinos etc). Why are feminists the only ones that always make it to the frontpage (even superficial pieces like this one)?
The term 'equality' is frequently used there, but never defined, which seems odd for an article that revolves around performance metrics used as a metaphor for feminism.
The biggest issue I've come to see in this industry is the denial that there's even an issue. That's what makes sexism so hard to address.<p>You'll find no shortage of those who don't experience that marginalization deny its existence. Meanwhile, those who do experience it and try to share how they experience it are ignored or talked over.
As a founder in tech field, I use a few steps to detect feminism,<p>1. If they have equal opportunities/equipments?<p>2. If the statements are bias based on other people instead of looking problem within themselves first.<p>3. Do they have the right/enough knowledge in the field.<p>In my experiences, Number 3 is very important. I never meet anyone with enough practice & knowledge about programming complains about gender problem. Stories I read is about people cannot write a single line of code but wants to be the executive/Project Manger.
The current title on HN of "Feminism is to equality as metrics are to performance" is far more interesting than the title at the blog of "Devops needs feminism", but it's never really elucidated.
I don't care how many women are in tech. Likewise I don't care how many straight men are in fashion or Mexicans in the NBA.<p>There - I said it.
The author doesn't seem to know much about feminism (self-admitted); he seems to be using the first and best definitions he can find, find that that definition/decription resonates with him, and then tries to sell it. So anyone who believes in equality (and isn't an asshole) is a feminist. Okay. Then I'll similarly assert that everyone who believes in equal opportunity is a communist, that everyone who believes in freedom is a capitalist, etc. Now, everyone is at least superficially acquainted with these ideologies, so they won't simply take such assertions at face value, even if I say that 'there are many definitions and this is just my definition'. To assert that an ideology (or school of thought, or what have you) is about this and that, a handy 'definition' is not enough for me, personally. One should perhaps make an assessment based on what it's members do and say, such as bloggers, academics, etc.. Or restrict oneself to a particular wave of feminism. At least a more comprehensive description and/or analysis is in order if you want to <i>correct others</i>, than to simply cite a single definition from a single Wiki. That is just my opinion, OP.