This is the core of the problem: Some people like the idea of robotic, semi-scripted conversations according to a well-defined set of rules. They think that if there's a rulebook, they can predict how people will respond to them. Or worse, they think they can control how people react and respond.
Yes, we should put some constraints around egregious communication issues as well as provide general guidelines, but the important thing is to let people interact naturally within those loose constraints.
> I feel like software devs (in bay area startup world, or FAANG) are usually a certain demographic and they usually come from a place of privilege where they've never had to do the mental work that's involved in communicating effectively across diverse demographics.
It's a fallacy, though. You can't create perfect rules for human conversation. Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills, even if it's somewhat painful along the way. The basic skills can be guided with simple rules and guidelines, but the problem comes when you try to control too much of the conversation or set the constraints so tightly that it's a minefield to navigate.
Thinking about the words you use in daily conversation with diverse peers doesn't have to be "robotic". You're just being exposed to how other people in less privileged positions have to think and act, and that's uncomfortable.
>You can't create perfect rules for human conversation.
Is anyone here claiming that their goal is perfection?
>Everyone needs to build those interpersonal and conversational skills
And there's nothing wrong with receiving help and guidance while you're on that journey.
No, it has nothing to do with that. As an unprivileged person, CoCs were harder for me to follow because I grew up using much harsher language and being more direct.
CoCs mainly seem to be about privileged people affirming to each other how “woke” they are.
I'd much rather save my mental energy for the coding.
If having to carefully think about how every turn of phrase could be seen and completely giving up on being able to make friends at work is the price of hiring less privileged people? I'd rather stay in my privileged monoculture thanks. The underprivileged can go join the company with the underprivileged monoculture and everyone can be happier, communicating in the style they prefer with people who are ok with that style.
People start saying “thanks for your feedback, we’ll look into this issue when planning the next iteration” as code for “you could be pissing in the wind”, and most communication becomes non sensical where you need to feel if they actually mean what they’re saying in text form.
Then we lament that face to face time is needed to communicate efficiently with people.
This is why people get stonewalled. Why would anyone speak their mind when there are serious consequences?
This strikes me as a surprising assertion: most software devs (including in the Bay Area, FAANG) are recent immigrants (or temporary guest workers) who are, by definition, navigating a culture very different than the one they grew up in.
The only data I can find that speaks to that (from 2015) has far less than half foreign-born (39.2% of "software engineers", 27.4% of "computer programmers", etc.), and obviously not all of those are going to be "recent immigrants".
https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/research/foreign-...
The only data I can find supporting this is that tech workers in Silicon Valley as a whole are majority foreign-born. But that includes everyone from Oracle to HP to Wipro, not just FAANG. (And I think the definition of Silicon Valley in this data is the traditional one, i.e., not including San Francisco.)
A subset of those are recent immigrants.