Introducing Passion Projects

https://github.com/blog/1433-introducing-passion-projects

by bencevans • 13 years ago

88 95 13 years ago

goldfeld• 13 years ago

Thanks Github, it's great to have your weight behind making tech more friendly to women, and spotlighting female role models so that more of the young might pursue a career in the field.

cbeach2• 13 years ago

Tech should be friendlier to women.

However, segregation isn't the way forward, IMHO. I'm always sad to see gender-focussed events and groups. I'd much rather see women and men -integrate- than congregate within their own gender.

And just to pre-empt, please don't give me the disingenuous "men are welcome too" line. This is, by definition, a women-focussed group.

jamesmiller5• 13 years ago

Women are underrepresented in technology. This event is to help promote the potential as well as accomplishments of women in technology.

I fail to see how this is segregation, they make no claim that this series is to be representing everyone, just highlighting women. It is an event focused on women's roles in technology and available to the community.

jessedhillon7• 13 years ago

By the self-centered logic of the OP, even if a minority group has only 0.1% representation, they should have no events targeting specifically them and their causes -- the 99.9% majority should be able to attend, and presumably contribute to the conversation with no ability of the event's organizers to moderate the dialog or direct the focus to the minority's experiences. Anything less than that is segregation.

It doesn't occur to the OP, apparently, that they are trying to create something that is decidedly different from the ordinary tech experience -- a conversation dominated by awkward-to-arrogant, entitled males who think that their very important opinions need to be heard everywhere and at all times.

I wonder if the OP (presumably male) insists on attending (female) rape survivor meetups, or if he could understand why attendees thereof would not feel totally comfortable with his attendance.

mcantelon• 13 years ago

From the sounds of it the talks are all given by women, but men can come to see them. So not segregation.

jamescun• 13 years ago

It is brilliant to see a move forward to recognising that there are women in technology and they provide as good a contribution as everybody else,

BUT,

Is creating a specific, segregated, event/group really the way forward or is it just creating a greater divide in the tech community along gender lines? What would really need to be done is look properly into why there is a disproportionate number of men versus women who go into technology, rather than introduce yet more segregation.

I do not believe that there is an event/group out there currently that would place any sort of restriction, intentional or otherwise, on female entry.

AlexandrB• 13 years ago

> What would really need to be done is look properly into why there is a disproportionate number of men versus women who go into technology, rather than introduce yet more segregation.

This isn't some big mystery. At least one reason that women don't enter technology fields is a lack of female role-models. Another is societal pressure that dictates that women are bad at technology.

Technology conferences focusing on women aren't just for the participants, they help counteract these two forces by giving visibility to notable women in tech.

http://bps-research-digest.blogspot.ca/2006/03/women-need-fe...

http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2012-03/21/where-have-al...

recuter2• 13 years ago

What role models did Grace Hopper have? And I can only speak for myself but I was never drawn to 'technology' out of having famous neckbeards or Jobs or Gates and so forth as role models.

You have to ask why women are more under represented in this particular field than others which used to be just as male dominated in the past. But people don't like to think about such deep large hairy societal problems.

None of this is to say that what's described in the OP is a bad thing.

nocm• 13 years ago

Maybe we should just fix this need for superficially similar role models which some people suffer from.

dwb• 13 years ago

Yes it is a way forward, as explained in the blog post under the section "Why?". And there is clearly unintentional restriction, otherwise we wouldn't need this in the first place.

fishtoaster• 13 years ago

I think their "Why" section addresses this pretty well: they believe one of the underlying reasons there aren't more women in tech is the lack of visibility for women already there: young women see a male dominated field and feel like they're not welcome, and so perpetuate the problem. By highlighting the existing women in tech, more young women will feel welcome there.

jenius• 13 years ago

This is how you get more women involved in tech, by actually taking action. I hope that we see more initiatives like this rather than hateful articles, which we've seen so many of recently.

Zikes4• 13 years ago

I think this is an excellent initiative by GitHub. It's well-acknowledged that there is a lack of women in tech, for what I'm sure is a wide variety of reasons, and celebrating the successes of women in that field is a noble endeavor.

Personally I believe that these women are capable of being a role model to both men and women, as they presumably have achieved their successes through their own merits and not by virtue of their gender, so I'm sure the wisdom they have to share at these meetups would benefit everyone. To that end I would be disappointed to hear if, while the meetups may encourage or advertise to a female audience, they chose to exclude men.

mlent11• 13 years ago

I disagree with everyone saying, "Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation?"

For the most part, women don't take up much space in the tech industry. Women look at the big names in tech, and they don't really see people who are "like me." This can be intimidating and disheartening. Creating more spaces for women to connect with other women, and share their experiences and encouragement is much needed. Of course, let's also not forget women of color and trans women, who obviously face additional challenges in finding people like themselves to look up to in tech. I hope that GitHub makes an effort to include a wide range of women with different backgrounds to include in this series.

Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning. I probably shouldn't be surprised that some of the first comments on something oriented towards women is, "But...WHAT ABOUT MEN?!" Get over yourselves! Let this be a reminder that the world does not revolve around you and people like you.

Zikes4• 13 years ago

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.

Is sexism not reason enough in itself? Is this not the very thing we're trying to fight against?

I fully acknowledge and lament that there is a severe lack of women in tech, and were it up to me men and women both would have equal opportunities in all regards, but you only debase your message and dilute your efforts when you try to level the playing field by making an environment that is more hostile towards men rather than one less hostile towards women.

The overarching goal is to be inclusive, of people of all genders, races, and the spectrum of people that fall in between. Yes, celebrate successes, find role models of all types and praise their accomplishments. Bring them forward to share their wisdom and experiences so that everyone can learn and benefit.

Edit: To clarify, I have no issues with an initiative that seeks out role models specifically within a category of minorities, such as by gender or race. My only qualm would be in limiting the audience.

mlent11• 13 years ago

To put it simply, sexism against men does not exist. You can discriminate against men, but let's be clear: sexism is systematic oppression by those in power on the basis of gender.

So...having a series of talks that is for women by women cannot possibly be sexist. You can say it discriminates by not allowing men to be speakers, if you so wish. I can't say I'd find it to interesting to listen to a man tell me what it's like to be a woman in tech, though, so you could also just say that they're just featuring people who are interesting to their audience: women.

Also -- who said anything about hostility? What I meant was, "This is about women...why are you bringing men up at all? Don't they have their own spheres which they already dominate?" I just get tired of all this "reverse sexism" nonsense.

Edit: To be clear, I agree with your last paragraph. I don't think it's limiting the audience to feature women speakers, unless you don't think that men can find women interesting. ;)

jackowayed• 13 years ago

No one is trying to make the overall industry more hostile to men. Some people are trying to make certain spaces that feel safe and encouraging to women, which often means minimizing the maleness of the space.

Most don't fully exclude men, but they have legitimate reasons to want to make it feel like a female space, and if that means taking measures that prevent some men who would like to attend from attending, that's not necessarily a problem.

I say this as a male who has attended campus women in CS dinners and talks. These events are open to all, but aimed at giving women interested in computer science a community, role models, etc. When I go, I am always prepared to leave if I feel that my presence is hurting the overall atmosphere, because I realize that the events are a powerful force against inequalities in society, and the least I can do is stay out of the way. And when you ask the organizers if men can come, they say yes, but they do mention that it's important for it to feel like a female space, and that if it got to the point that so many men attended that this compromised that feeling, they would start discouraging men from attending.

Not every event needs to serve everyone in the industry. There are probably some language-focused meetups where you wouldn't feel especially comfortable or welcome because you don't know the language, or maybe even actively hate it. I understand that you feel it is different because you'd at least be allowed to attend a meetup for a language you don't know, but it still illustrates that not all events in the industry have to cater to you. When they're catering toward a disadvantaged group, they deserve even more leeway to make sure they achieve their goals. As long as the network of women-focused events doesn't become so large and meaningful that it is systematically disadvantaging men, I don't see any problem with some events excluding men in various ways.

You're concerned about sexism in the small--in this one event. Others are more concerned with sexism in the large--the pervasive social environment that systematically discourages women from entering an extremely rewarding and lucrative industry. Both are suboptimal. In the ideal world, there wouldn't be any women-only tech events. But in the ideal world, there wouldn't be any cultural problems in the industry that make women feel less welcome and free to speak at an event with significant male attendance than at an event that is all or nearly all women. Understand that if organizers choose to, say, split the tickets so that at most 25% of tickets may go to men, they're not doing it because they want to discriminate against men, but because they worry that allowing too many men to attend will make their event less effective at correcting an injustice that we all believe is worth fixing.

jfim• 13 years ago

> Also, there's no reason why any women's group should have to admit men to appease the "I promise we're not sexist against men" line of reasoning.

I doubt it would go very well if someone hosted a men-only event and said "I promise we're not sexist against women."

I don't think anyone is against having women-focused groups any more than having other interest-based groups. Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.

jt2190• 13 years ago

  > Women exclusive groups, though, do send a very 
  > conflicting message that it's okay to exclude a gender.

Please clarify... You're saying that the currently enfranchised group (males) will get further encouragement for their exclusionary behaviors because the disenfranchised group (women) exclude males from some of their activities? Does't this completely ignore the current power imbalance between the two groups?

mlent11• 13 years ago

The thing is, when women's groups are formed, they aren't to "keep men out". The point is that women aren't even thinking about men, they are thinking about other women. So no, I don't think it sends that message.

All this line of thinking does is shift attention towards men, thus reinforcing a male-centered culture.

hcarvalhoalves• 13 years ago

> Why create something separate for women? Isn't that further separation?

Segregation is not considered segregation if it has good intentions. The political term is "affirmative action" [1].

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action

mpyne• 13 years ago

Well segregation is segregation, with positive or negative overtones depending on the context like how we still to this day segregate restrooms by gender norms.

Affirmative action does not necessarily mean segregation either. The NFL's "Rooney Rule" requires a minority candidate to be interviewed for head coaching vacancies but doesn't require one be selected. We'd still call that affirmative action.

Rather it means merely that instead of just stopping the negative action applied against a minority and letting history take its course, that some positive action is taken to repair the damage done to the minority group, in order to actually have a chance at real equality in the future. This could include means such as segregated advocacy groups but encompasses much more.

oliverhunt3• 13 years ago

I think this is a good idea but is the word 'Passion' only in the name because it's women?

ad_hominem• 13 years ago

Passion Party => Passion Project?

mnicole• 13 years ago

It takes passion for someone to keep doing what they do despite the challenges they face.

holman2• 13 years ago

A "passion project", in my mind, is simply a project that you're excited about (notably one that is likely outside the bounds of your normal, day-to-day job). I distinguish them from "side projects", which tend to be something you're interested in, but not something you're necessarily defined by. That's the reason the program's called passion projects — hopefully we'll have a ton of talks on really interesting things that our speakers are really, well, passionate about.

I don't view "passion" as a word that is exclusive to women, in other words — we could just as easily pull in men for the same talk series.

oliverhunt3• 13 years ago

Most definitely. We share the same meaning of the concept of a passion project. I was probably just over thinking it, I am just suspicious of the way such highly emotive language has been used and it just happens to be for an interview series with women.

I'll admit I had not read the link before I posted that comment, but looking at it now I still believe that the language used is overly emotional and I think that it has been used just because this is a series on women.

A definition of the word passion involves, among other things "strong and barely controllable emotion" and I think this may be an obvious case where a gendered stereotype has been blatantly applied.

Some sentences taken from the link:

"celebrate the work of some of the most passionate women in our industry."

"share one of their nearest and dearest passion projects with our community."

"to hear about some positive experiences from other women in our industry doing what they love."

msoad2• 13 years ago

So I started programming (for real) about two years ago. I spent about four months teaching myself coding PHP, JavaScript and CSS. I was able to secure a job after four months. I wasn't really good enough for the position.

My wife is doing the same. She is following my path. She have me, I teach her and she is learning much faster. After a year, she is still looking for a volunteer job! Nobody believes she can do anything.

This is extremely sad. My wife is far more advanced than me when I got my first job. We are immigrants and we are not white, I believe those adds to our problems.

Everyone who says women don't deserve this kind of attention never saw a women struggling get in tech world.

lfborjas• 13 years ago

I hear you, friend, it's like it's ok for companies to hire us , men, as a "risky bet", I'm not the best engineer but thankfully my employers have all "seen" something in me to have enough faith to give me the chance to learn the job and then become better. Women seem to not get the same kind of good faith: my partner has two engineering degrees and she's by far a better engineer than I (skill-and-attitude-wise), and yet most companies reject her because of her "lack of experience". I know that that is a problem that befalls recent graduates all over the globe, but the fact that I garnered faith from employers more than once and she hasn't, not a single time, is -IMO- telling of a lack of balance.

rmc2• 13 years ago

Aye, holding people to different standards is a way to discriminate.

pablasso• 13 years ago

She should just release whatever she creates why learning. Stereotypes are no longer valid if you have a proof of your skills in Github.

girvo• 13 years ago

In an ideal world, you would be correct. This is not an ideal world.

msoad2• 13 years ago

What if I tell you I didn't know Git when I got my first job and she has a bunch of green dots in her Github profile?

thejosh• 13 years ago

>We are immigrants and we are not white, I believe those adds to our problems.

Usually, sadly, this is because initially you don't have a formal education (university or otherwise)...

freework• 13 years ago

Self taught programmers are more discriminated against these days than women, in my opinion. A lot of companies _say_ they don't care if you don't have a degree, but my experience is that the programmer with a degree from Stanford but a blank github account will get the job over a self-taught developer with dozens of shipped projects under their belt.

muan• 13 years ago

As a female developer, I would intuitively feel glad when seeing this kind of events/groups being formed, but thinking about it I am not sure why. I don't even think I feel like going to them for any other reason than, well, I am female and they're also female so I should probably check it out.

After reading the reasons Github wrote, I find it hard to relate. For me picking up coding has nothing to do with seeing some other women do it, but perhaps seeing some human beings do it. And I don't think seeing female developers would inspire me further more than male developers. But I could be completely false and it might be that turns out I don't know what I really feel...

Perhaps it's because I have not yet noticed any serious injustice around where I've been, could be that I just didn't realised what they were or I haven't spend enough time in the tech industry. The most unfair thing in tech I've ever encountered was interviewing at a company where there is no ladies restroom...

Anyhoo. I don't personally know any other female developer and I've been coding since 11, that's 10+ years, I guess that's ought to be wrong. And since there are no samples around me, I don't really know what inspired other female developer to learn how to code. Is there anyone here who cares to share her experience?

mark_l_watson• 13 years ago

Very cool!

Not too far off topic: I worked for a good tech company for most of the years between 1973 and 1996. The only major negative thing about the company was a 'glass ceiling' for women engineers (we did have some very high profile women on our board of directors though). I found that situation embarrassing.

So, yes, special events featuring women engineers are a good thing.

BTW, my granddaughter can program fairly well using the Scratch game platform :-)

MrAlmostWrong2• 13 years ago

Does anyone happen to know the percentage of women that work @Github?

cobychapple• 13 years ago

19 out of our 152 employees are women, so a little over 12%.

MrAlmostWrong2• 13 years ago

Thanks for the reply.

memset• 13 years ago

This is really neat! Kudos to github.

Here is a question: as one of two engineers at a 6-person seed-round startup, what could we be doing to contribute to the ecosystem of people who support women in technology? We don't have the office space - much less the money - to find or sponsor a monthly talk. So within the context of running our business, what can we do?

Sometimes I fear that, until we have a successful and profitable company (with spare conference rooms, clout to find people who would like to give lectures here, or an otherwise large audience), there isn't much we can do to contribute.

What can smaller companies or even individuals within organizations do?

hypotext• 13 years ago

You could contribute resources to Women in CS organizations at universities. I'm part of one, and we'd love to have engineers come in and give tech talks, especially about web development. You also could donate a bit to sponsor events (we hold events like "Interview Workshop sponsored by Google") or even offer internships. Every bit helps.

noahl• 13 years ago

I'm not as familiar with this problem as I'd like to be, so please take this with a grain of salt, but maybe you could invite female CS majors from nearby universities to come see your offices? Or better yet, to see what it's like to work with you for a day.

After all, one of the major issues seems to be that women don't see role models working in tech companies. If you have female students come and work with you, then they should be able to imagine themselves working at your company, or another small startup.

dmazin• 13 years ago

It makes me pretty happy to see that this event is already full.

arcwhite3• 13 years ago

To those saying that "this is discrimination is it is morally wrong" (and I don't think this event constitutes discrimination, but here goes):

1. Should we then do away with gender segregated sports teams? 2. Should other minorities (e.g. LBGTQ groups) no longer have support groups that focus on issues relevant to them?

Having groups that cater to certain minorities feels to me both necessary and useful. We are not all identical. You probably don't want to live in a world without exceptional and different people in it; it would be boring.

That means there are times when some of those people who are like-minded want to get together and support each other. In some cases, that means other groups need to be discouraged (because that minority would otherwise be overwhelmed, drowned out in a sea of majority voices).

Why are so many voices in our industry constantly fighting events like this?

hnacc106• 13 years ago

When will "enough be enough"? When will we have no more need for these separate groups? Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race. That is wrong.

There are much more women than men who attend college now. Women score better than men in reading and other subjects. The wage gap IS a myth. More money is focused on women's health issues.

Do you see that any area where women don't already represent at least 50% of the workforce, there will be loud voices decrying sexism at this?

On the other hand, there are 0 efforts on raising standards for boys, or trying to get them into X field. Nothing. As seen in history, once a group starts to gain power and privileges, it will continue in that direction no matter the actual circumstances.

arcwhite3• 13 years ago

"Instead of actually choosing the best candidates based on their best abilities, we now resort to purposely choosing people based on their sex or race."

I call bulltwang. Please provide evidence of this supposed systematic selection of 'minority' candidates, because I'm sure as heck not seeing it where I am.

You assert that the wage gap is myth. Please also provide evidence for this statement, because everything I've read suggests that it remains a problem across the board - and for the record we're talking about IT specifically here, and we're not talking about the wage gap, we're talking about the abysmally low rates of entry into this sector by half the population as defined by gender identification.

It's all well and good to say "NO ENOUGH IS ENOUGH MERITOCRACY NAO PLZ", but who decides what is meritorious? The entrenched majority? This is why that term was coined in derision.

I say, enough will be enough when there's no longer a problem (c.f. uptake of science/engineering/tech by women). Until then, we have a problem, and we need to do things to fix that problem.

Introducing Passion Projects

Related Stories