Diversity Technology

Where are the jobs? Where are the opportunities?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

As is typical for events such as these, mention is made in comments related to the “Beautiful code” book about providing a list of women–the typical “where are the women” these discussions always break down to. How many times do we have to do this? And in how many places? Are these genuine questions? Or just a convenient way to put the burden of the lack of diversity back on we women?

A better way of looking at this is, where are the jobs? Where are the opportunities? Where are the companies that genuinely want to hire more women in technology because they want to diversify their workplace? Where are the editors or conference givers who want to provide a richer experience by ensuring a balanced offering?

What we need is to start building a list of companies who are actively recruiting women techs. The same for conferences and books. Then we can publish these, with requirements, location, and other information, and let the women who are interested come to you–because you sure as hell are not coming to us any time we build yet another list.

If you think diversity is important, and you’re hiring, let me know and I’ll publish your job. I’ll put these into a separate category so that women can search on jobs, and close the job post when the position or positions are filled.

If you think diversity is important, and you’re looking for an author, writer, or conference presenter, let me know and I’ll publish a post about your book, magazine, or conference. Again, I’ll put this into a separate category so that women can also search on writing and presenting opportunities. If your conference speaker list closes, or you find the author of your dreams, I’ll close the post so you won’t be bothered, and the item no longer turns up on the active list.

Yes, I could create a wiki or an application and do the same thing, but that’s focusing on the technology; focusing on the technology has not worked once in the past. Enough with focusing on the technology, time to focus on finding a solution.

So, where are the jobs? Where are the opportunities for women?

Diversity Technology

Women evidently don’t code

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

If you’re an older woman in tech you’re faced with a double whammy. In the last post, we discover we’re too old to ‘hack the web’. However, we’re also not considered much of a programmer, either. Or at least, that’s what I read from the table of contents and authors for the new O’Reilly book, “Beautiful Code: Leading Programmers Explain How They Think.”

Out of 39 authors, only one is woman, and she’s a co-author of one chapter.

Way to set a real high standard, there, O’Reilly. What can I say? When O’Reilly raises the bar on diversity, the call goes out for Limbo!

Disclaimer I have written several books for O’Reilly, and am currently working on a new one.


The organizer of the book stated (in comments, email, and post) that he contacted 15 women to write an article for the book, and only one responded affirmatively. He contacted 130 men, and 37 accepted–giving an acceptance rate for men was about 25% (I show 28%), and for women, about 6%. I would imagine since the invitations were based on how ‘well known’ and ‘popular’ the person is, the list of women invited would include the same women who are always invited to participate in these events. This probably accounts somewhat for the lack of time to be involved in a project–I don’t know, the names of the women were not divulged.

I am disappointed that more of the women didn’t participate. I’m even more disappointed if none of those who could not participate didn’t bother to recommend others in their place–heavily disappointed in this one. But I’m also disappointed that O’Reilly didn’t work with the book organizer to attempt to contact other people who might have helped the organizer determine other good candidates.

The number of men invited was 130, women 15. This means the invitation rate for women was 11% that of men, which is a small pool on which to depend. If we look at the topmost 10-11 percent of men invited (based on the same criteria of popularity as applied to women), would we still have the same 25% acceptance rate? Hard to say, because again, we don’t have all the data to extrapolate true knowledge.

I do know this: even doubling the number of women invited may have driven out 2 or 3 additional women. Not many women, true, but at least the lack of women wouldn’t be so painfully obvious. The acceptance ratio might even have been higher, if the pool of available women is extended beyond the same criteria used in every other event of this nature.

The result of this small additional effort would be that not only would women in technology have felt we achieved some fair representation in the book, the work would also have provided a more diverse point of view, and thus been a richer book. But what was it that was written in comments to this post?

While they could make an awesome book, of course, with a more diverse quality of authors, but that is not their priority; it is a waste of time, in my mind, to spend time trying to find someone of a certain gender or race, when one could get a similar result without all that effort.

The organizer of the book accepts full responsibility, but I’m not letting O’Reilly off the hook. The company knows that this is an issue that arises time and again, and should have been sensitive to such and worked with the organizer. Now, what we have is a reaffirmation–yet another reaffirmation–that whether women in tech are represented or not just isn’t that important; that working towards such is ‘not worth all that effort’.

You know what’s sadly ironic about this? The author royalties (not company profits) from the book go to Amnesty International, an organization I strongly support primarily because it is one of the few that won’t compromise when it comes to fighting for the rights of women.

Diversity Technology Web

Speak softly

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Interesting writing and discussion on another perspective about women in technology. This is from the DevChix group, and though I really dislike the use of ‘chix’ and ‘grrl’ when referencing professional women, it’s a good site to discover women working in the newer Web 2.0 technologies.

In the essay, the writer who goes by gloriajw, believes that one of the reasons women have been dropping out of the field is the hostile nature of most tech environments. She addresses this from the perspective of what makes women’s only groups more approachable:

The material for this article came about through my participation in both women-only and mixed gender groups of many kinds. When I wonder why tech groups aren’t tolerable for many women, I look at the inverse of the problem: What makes women-only tech groups more tolerable for women?

Of the behavioral patterns she’s identified in said groups, she mentions a strong sense of community, and in particular how communication is managed:

Destructive criticism is the best way to keep a site predominantly male. It implies that there is no concern about whether a person can learn from a response or not, or whether they would find offense. It is an outward display of ego, a territorial “pissing rite” in which most women do not and will not participate.

In such groups, the author states, bad behavior is seldom called and typically ignored. Contrastingly, in women’s groups:

If you do something awful to one woman in a women-only community, all will hear and know about it, and you are ousted. Most of the time this is first discussed and voted on by many group members. Many times the women’s group will even make an effort to explain the offense to the oblivious offender. But if the offender is still oblivious and/or offending, the offender is out. This is done to protect the interests and goals of the group. Many male dominated online groups don’t run this way. Most if not all women’s groups run this way, whether online or off.

There is a reason why I won’t join such women’s group, and this paragraph more or less sums it up for me. This ‘group think’ way of dealing with difficulty I find, frankly, repugnant. I happen to agree that ignoring a person who exhibits ‘bad’ behavior is one of the better approaches to take. I’ve seldom seem a troll continue when no responds to what they say.

And what is ‘bad’ behavior? When does such voting take place? In the last week I’ve been called both mean and vicious because of my criticism of a company and a company’s actions. Is it then that one must preface all criticism with something sweet and fluffy in order to ease the difficulty of the words? I can’t think of any better approach to shut down all discussion than to have to struggle through some inner debate about how to coach criticism in ‘nice’ terms in order to express such. Weblogging has demonstrated that nice is relative–having to do with popularity, as much as tone and word usage.

gloriasw, has four suggestions for online discussion areas to make them more inviting for women:

  1. Immediately delete offending and off-topic comments
  2. Return aggressive or overly hard comments back to the creator and have them re-phrase
  3. Treat the space like a community, which I presume means to monitor
  4. Explicitly state the site is ‘woman friendly’

She also has approaches to take for men to communicate with women:

  • Don’t assume when a woman is enthusiastic about their work, they’re hitting on you or has to do with you
  • Leave your libido at the door
  • Women aren’t dressing the way they do because they’re sending you signals
  • Something about guy humor can be OK if the first three items are kept in mind

There is some of this I agree with, but I have to ask the question: do women spend all day running from the men in their groups? I’ve rarely had issues of being hit on, even when I was younger and considered ‘purty’. I’ve rarely seen this happen with other women. Is this happening, now, among the younger men? Younger tech guys, do you spend all your time hitting on the women at work?

Too much emphasis lately on women being perceived as sexual object or victim’, and way too much emphasis on how the problems women are having in technology are because men see us as sex objects. I’m sorry, this is not my perception. I’ve been in the industry 25 years, and I’ve rarely seem women hit on at work, nor do I see such behavior in most of the discussions I get involved in.

Does it exist? I imagine so, but I seriously doubt this is the reason women are not joining and are leaving the tech field. Why? Because such behavior is everywhere–it’s not unique to Web 2.0 environments. The feel of titanium or the glow of an LCD does not trigger men into being primal savages.

As for the aggressive nature of the discussions, again, considering that I’m also seen as a ‘aggressive’ communicator, I don’t know if communication style is the problem as much as lack of respect and the communication only reflects this. To me, the larger issue is that women in tech are not as respected as the men, and hence our work is more easily discredited or ignored, our contributions downplayed, our participation compromised. Worse, when we do get into passionate discussion, our arguments tend to be discredited using the too typical ‘shrill’ or my personal favorite, ‘hysterical’.

What concerns me about writings such as gloriasw’s is that this can actually make things worse, rather than better.

The first writing I ever did on sexism in this weblog was related to Doc Searls –yes beloved, gentle Doc Searls. Doc Searls is a nice man, and yes, he does reference and link to women–more than a lot of other guys. But he’ll never get into a discussion with a woman. He will never debate a woman. In close to seven years of off and on reading of his site, I’ve never seen him actually have a truly engaged discussion with a woman. To this day, I don’t know if it’s because he doesn’t respect us, professionally. Or if it’s because he doesn’t know how to have such a discussion without coming across as bully or being abusive. By not engaging with women, though, he does us more harm than if he wrote that we’re all skanky bitches.

If we keep emphasizing about how women need ‘safe’ places, we’re going to get exactly what we’re asking for: safe, isolated, segregated spaces where we never have to worry about harsh words. We’ll also never have to worry about reaching the top positions in our fields, becoming as well known, being invited to conferences, and so on, either.

Respect is the key, not tone of voice, or words used. If a person respects you, it comes across in how they respond to what you say. They may get angry, and they tell you you’re dead wrong, and they may even say you’re being an idiot in this situation. However, if the overall interaction is one of respect, it doesn’t matter the tone in any particular discussion. That’s the real problem we women have: we don’t have the respect that, frankly, we deserve.

Case in point is the Devchix site, itself. This site has been around almost a year, and covers all sorts of topics, including those of interest to the Ajaxian set. Yet, I don’t think I’ve seen any of this site’s writings linked by sites such as Ajaxian. In fact, the same looks to be true for each individual contributor’s weblog–I can’t see that any of these women have been linked by some of the more dominate or well known tech weblogs.

I first found out about this writing at Simon Willison‘s weblog. Yet this is the first time (that I can find through the search engines) that Simon has ever referenced a writing from the site. Or, from what I can see, the individual weblogs of the authors. Yet they write on many topics related to the tech that Simon is interested in.

Simon does point to the Reddit thread, as demonstration that this confirms the writing, but really doesn’t this just confirm that discussions at Reddit (and Digg) tend to degenerate into three year olds flinging shit no matter what the topic? Frankly, as much as I’d like to blame Reddit or Digg or even Slashdot for women leaving tech, I find it unlikely.

Men and women are both equally capable of being aggressive and mean, and though society has educated each sex to express such in differing ways, we need to stop pointing how women are fragile flowers who can’t handle strong disagreement, while all men do is go toe to toe and spit at each other. What we need to question is when there are women in the field, writing on the topics, speaking of such, going to the conferences, why aren’t we given the acknowledgment? Why aren’t we given either the respect due us as professional or the attention we deserve as active participants. At a minimum, why, in this supposedly equal world where no one knows you’re a man, woman, or dog, why aren’t we given the links?

For all that I disagree with gloriasw, I appreciate her post. At a minimum, it highlights yet more women who are working with the Web 2.0 technologies and such attention is a good thing. I just wish when members of the site write on technology, they would be equally as noticed.


Ajaxy comments

I’ve incorporated editing into the site–both traditional, link-based, and Ajax. I still need to tweak, and I imagine as people use the comments, things will break.

Both types of edits are available for each item, using the philosophy that a person may want to use a traditional edit page over an Ajax editing approach. The hypertext link for editing takes you to the full edit page, where you can also delete the comment. The Ajax approach is accessible through a ‘button’ added to the post using script.

I had planned on pulling my simple custom library for the background functionality, and either using JQuery, or Dean Edwards Base.dom on which to build. However, I’m concerned about the Safari problem with Dean’s library, and I’m not sure that JQuery fits all my needs. What I may end up doing is pulling in Edwards’ library, and creating my own custom intermediate library.

All I’ve done for now is create a singleton where before I had several global functions. The original approach doesn’t impact on performance or cross-browser compatibility, but lots of global variables can cause problems with merged libraries. I’ve also made some attempts at eliminating IE memory links related to removeChild used with elements with assigned event handlers, but this still needs work.

I have one polling operation that checks to see if there are new comments after the page is loaded, and then pulls these in if found. The new comment(s) are added to the end of the list of comments in the page, with a yellow ‘fade’ to signal the addition. I’ve also added an Ajax preview, but not a non-scripted preview. Lots of real issues doing the latter with WordPress. Mayhap someone else has a plugin for it.

Finally, I didn’t incorporate OpenID. I thought about doing this, and had incorporated OpenID for comments via an existing plug-in at one point. However, OpenID is identity, not necessarily trust or ownership. My main interest is identifying the person who just made a comment and perhaps wants to edit typos–that’s it. For now, I’m using a combination of cookies and IP address. It’s not perfect, but it should be relatively safe, and relatively open.

If I had used OpenID, those people who did not want to get one of these, or who write anonymously wouldn’t have been able to edit their comments. Contrary to popular criticism, anonymous comments do have value, at least in this space.

One big problem I ran into, and perhaps I don’t understand XHTML, is that when I created the URL to edit a comment, which uses a traditional GET with two parameters, ala ?action=editcomment&comment=3333, I received a mal-formed XML error with Firefox. The page validated, and also pulled up in every other browser. Did I miss something related to XHTML with this one?

I have a lot more to do with the site, and the underlying libraries, but I’m starting the book this next week, and will have to finish the bits off as I can. I still have my graphics and photo library, and some meta/RDF stuff I want to incorporate. Once the work I’ve published here gets a chance to be decently tested, I’ll look at packaging for other use. It’s not going to be a simple plug-in, but should be able to be packaged.


I had forgotten to encode the ampersand in the URL for the link. The validator did not pick it up, because I also forgot that the link wouldn’t show unless the application accessed it with my logged in cookie.

Yes, it was a particularly stupid error on my part. That’s what’s nice about XHTML: it doesn’t hesitate to let you know when you’ve been stupid. Same as anonymous commenters. <smiley />

Technology Weblogging

Movable Type: The Princess Time Forgot

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Once upon a time Burningbird ran under Movable Type. In fact, the weblog ran under Movable Type for at least a couple of years. But then, I also ran a Radio weblog, one through Blogger, my own form of WordPress (Wordform), and WordPress off and on–currently on.

At one time, Movable Type was the princess to Blogger’s Queen, a potential successor to the kingdom of Blog, Blog Away. Ben and Mena Trott were feted and fawned over. They were even invited to contribute to the book on weblogging that O’Reilly published, and to which I contributed.

Then that new darling, that rapscallion, WordPress came along with that era’s latest incarnation of wunderkid. Combined with Movable Type’s new, and loathed, licensing system and performance issues, MT still stayed a princess, but of what kingdom, no one really knew.

Today, nudged by Arthur in comments, and announced by Read/Write, Movable Type version 4.0 is on the way out to thee and me, and with its Typepad inspired performance enhancements, and hip, Web 2.0 interface, comes the politically astute move: Movable Type 4.0 will be open sourced.

Of course, there is open source and then there’s open source. To me, open source means I can create a fork of the product. According to Six Apart’s MT open source page, MT will be a true open source, licensed as GPL.

This is a smart move in many ways. First, it reminds us that MT still exists. Today, the big stories in technology related to weblogging tools tend to be about what dumb ass move the tool company or organization has done recently; not necessarily, ooh, look, shiny new release. This includes Six Apart with the recent fiasco of deleting too many Live Journal weblogs in its effort to be ‘child safe’. Open sourcing the MT code raises the noise level around the tool just enough to be heard among the recent Google/Microsoft/Yahoo et al stories–something that’s becoming increasingly difficult.

Secondly, Six Apart can do what it will with regards to licensing MT, including dropping support altogether for the product in order to focus on its more profitable hosted services. If it can get the ‘community’ to take over support, it means Six Apart is no longer trapped into supporting MT forever. I imagine right now that’s tempting.

Lastly, Six Apart can benefit from the creativity and skills of any number of open source developers, none of whom have to be paid. Wow, that must seem like finding a grape lollipop on the ground, still in its wrapper.

On the downside, my first reaction reading this was, “I’d give anything for a really exciting tech story, right now.” Movable Type is part of another era. An era where releasing a new version of MT would cause the news to shoot to the top of Daypop. Remember Daypop? I bet most people reading this do not. They’ll remember Mena and cries of “Asshole!”, but not necessarily the tool that built the castle that is Six Apart.

It was surprising to hear that MT is being open sourced. Surprising, also, to read that Anil Dash is vice president of Six Apart now (when did that happen?) More surprising to see a positive review by Duncan Riley.

It was good, though, to be reminded of this princess that time forgot. To see her crown polished, and her sequined gown fluffed out and shiny. Too bad that she returns to the dance so late; many of us have already left the ball.