> Diversity and inclusiveness continue to be vital goals for the Rust project at all levels.
I mean.. lifetime checks won't stop working if you don't consider yourself heterosexual or anything o.O The two matters simply don't mix in my head
It is important for projects, now, to state their goals upfront and be clear, especially when you could have 1000s of contributors from all over the world. This is something that's new for software projects, but as open source becomes larger and more diverse its becoming more necessary. The alternative has been a community based loosely around some invisible set of rules that alienates or drives away potential contributors or sparks some drama that ends up on the top of Reddit/HN/etc.
Lifetime checks will stop working if the project gets abandoned over political issues.
Because.. why excluding people based on their skin color is discriminatory, but including people based on their skin color is not discriminatory?
So, yeah, it's a political issue, but an open source project is necessarily a political entity by virtue of being made of people. You can't escape making political decisions, and since "inclusivity" mostly just means being nice to people, I can't complain much.
In other words, "not excluding" implies not asking for color skins.
They have talks, documentation is awesome, examples may even run online, ide stuff is cool, In my opinion, it hard to be more welcoming than that, and special treatment based on any individual traits (except for "what OS you're using" and stuff) would not only be unneeded, but also should be repelled ([subjective] personal value).
> the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people, especially on the grounds of race, age, or sex.
Is it unjust to make sure people from a minority do not feel alienated?
Secondly, one can't be sure that others won't feel alienated. You just put them in a different classification. I would definitely tend to feel alienated..
That's what we thought before Rust came, that you could only have safety if you sacrificied speed. But now we know it was wrong ;)
I do, really do, belive this should just boil down to: - don't be a jerk - don't discriminate
You could read this: http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-diversity-righ...
Or maybe if you like listening instead: https://www.gimletmedia.com/reply-all/52-raising-the-bar
So, while it's a nuanced and complicated topic, there are actual reasons why this benefits a project like Rust. Diversity amongst any organization is not only good for society, but objectively the output of the org itself.
but you think that the first one, based on your own judgment, will be more "out of the box" when having solutions for the company.
So no matter what you think, the one from a minority is certainly preferable for hiring?
I think the idea is to include as best as possible what may be hard to assess factors such as difference of experience, culture and upbringing and using that, make a decision as the hirer who you think will benefit the company best, not to choose a person and then override who you think is best just because of one factor.
All this really takes is valuing an outside perspective. An yes, sometimes just the skin color can be enough, if that skin color has affected how people see them or any unique problems it has come with. That does mean it is or must be enough though, just that it may be something worth including.
As a simple example, I'll leave you this: How We Accidentally Made a Racist Videogame.[1] It should be easy to see how a slightly more diverse group of developers and/or QA testers could have avoided that problem. Similar things exist with dealing with other cultures or countries, or people with disabilities, or if you're really unlucky, just people of the other sex if you're unlucky enough to have that much of a homogeneous set of coworkers.
1: http://www.kotaku.co.uk/2017/01/12/how-we-accidentally-made-...
Once you see that worthy men can be made to feel unwelcome, merely due to their choice of programming language, it makes one wonder if other worthy people do not feel unwelcome when they are treated dismissively in some other way, as by by referring to every one as “men” indifferently.
They will say that they value diversity of thoughts that may come when you have people with various backgrounds, but it is much more primitive in practice, always boiling down to companies acquiring people with certain skin color or gender just for the sake of it.
There are well-known but taboo reasons behind the lack of so-called diversity in tech and other highly intellectually demanding areas. And as long as uncomfortable truth cannot come out in the overly sensitive cultural climate of today, initiatives and policies in this direction will remain misguided.
Let’s make it simple - having a diverse and welcoming community makes a project more attractive to contributors, and means that it’s more likely to succeed in the long term.
Sure, I never argued against fostering a welcome environment for contributors. We need more of this especially in open source, where contributions can be sorely lacking.
Instead I question the notion that Rust needs to have some sort or diversity to succeed. The assumption that it does implies that without diversity Rust will fail. However, Rust is not particularly diverse at the moment and it is certainly successful.
Are contributions currently being rejected based on personal traits?
I think the answer to this question would help me a lot in understanding any of this.