- 10 Jun 2018 14:23
#14923102
Finally progress in the tech industry.
Publishers are much more advanced already.
I've witnessed lots of arguments and debates that involved the right claiming the ultimate goal of the left is equality of outcome and the left laughing and calling the right crazy. Considering where we are heading, I'm not so sure if the claim was all that crazy.
Postmeritocracy wrote:
The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto
Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.
But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”
(If you are not familiar with criticisms of meritocracy, please refer to the resources on this page.)
It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.
What does a post-meritocracy world look like? It is founded on a core set of values and principles, an affirmation of belonging that applies to everyone who engages in the practice of software development.
Our Values
These core values and principles are:
* We do not believe that our value as human beings is intrinsically tied to our value as knowledge workers. Our professions do not define us; we are more than the work we do.
* We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills.
* We can add the most value as professionals by drawing on the diversity of our identities, backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. Homogeneity is an antipattern.
* We can be successful while leading rich, full lives. Our success and value is not dependent on exerting all of our energy on contributing to software.
* We have the obligation to use our positions of privilege, however tenuous, to improve the lives of others.
* We must make room for people who are not like us to enter our field and succeed there. This means not only inviting them in, but making sure that they are supported and empowered.
* We have an ethical responsibility to refuse to work on software that will negatively impact the well-being of other people.
* We acknowledge the value of non-technical contributors as equal to the value of technical contributors.
* We understand that working in our field is a privilege, not a right. The negative impact of toxic people in the workplace or the larger community is not offset by their technical contributions.
* We are devoted to practicing compassion and not contempt. We refuse to belittle other people because of their choices of tools, techniques, or languages.
* The field of software development embraces technical change, and is made better by also accepting social change.
* We strive to reflect our values in everything that we do. We recognize that values that are espoused but not practiced are not values at all.
Publishers are much more advanced already.
BBC wrote:
Lionel Shriver attacks Penguin publisher's inclusion policy
Writer Lionel Shriver has accused publisher Penguin Random House of putting diversity ahead of quality.
It says new authors should reflect the UK population by 2025, "taking into account ethnicity, gender, sexuality, social mobility and disability". The company said: "Books shape our culture, and this should not be driven only by people who come from a narrow section of society." It has also said job applicants would no longer need to have a degree.
The We Need to Talk About Kevin author said the publishers were "drunk on virtue". Writing in the Spectator, Ms Shriver said: "Penguin Random House no longer regards the company's raison d'être as the acquisition and dissemination of good books. "Rather, the organisation aims to mirror the percentages of minorities in the UK population with statistical precision." In the article she suggested that a manuscript "written by a gay transgender Caribbean who dropped out of school at seven" would be published "whether or not said manuscript is an incoherent, tedious, meandering and insensible pile of mixed-paper recycling". Ms Shriver also said she found it "alarming" that the publishing house was no longer requiring new staff to have degrees.
On its website, Penguin Random House says the publishing industry does not reflect current society and that making publishing more inclusive is "both a cultural and commercial imperative." It is for this reason, the company said, that it would aim to have its staff and authors mirror the population of the UK by 2025. Progress towards this goal - which was announced last year - will be published on an annual basis.
Candice Carty-Williams is a writer who has also worked at Penguin Random House for almost two years. She supports the company's attempts to make both its staff and authors more reflective of the UK population. "It's been proven that more diverse workforces foster a more innovative and creative environment and results," she says. She argues there are many longstanding barriers preventing people from minority groups getting into the industry. "How will this change unless initiatives are put in place to redress this balance?" she asks.
Concerning Ms Shriver's argument that quality will suffer as a result of the policy, Ms Carty-Williams says: "Since when were good books and cultural representation mutually exclusive?" She argues Penguin Random House are simply trying to make literature culturally reflective, "not because it's a box-ticking exercise or because it's the 'right thing to do', but because it matters".
I've witnessed lots of arguments and debates that involved the right claiming the ultimate goal of the left is equality of outcome and the left laughing and calling the right crazy. Considering where we are heading, I'm not so sure if the claim was all that crazy.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts"
Richard Feynman
Richard Feynman