Read on Twitter
Thanks to those who got in contact about my broad spectrum subtweet about the dire lack of diversity in programming language design. I try not to subtweet, better to call people up than call them out etc. Apologies! A quick thread with constructive suggestions...
Ideas to make things better:
a/ not relying on in person international meetings and conferences. They exclude a huge silent majority as well as trash the environment. We now know they aren't needed.
a/ not relying on in person international meetings and conferences. They exclude a huge silent majority as well as trash the environment. We now know they aren't needed.
b/ get discussion off slack-type chat platforms. Only those privileged enough to be hyper-present can take part
c/ if you're in an over-represented group, share the keys and make space for someone else, diversifying org teams. Give up your power. If you think you're community is welcoming and hasn't had problems, despite being weirdly homogenous, prepare to have your eyes opened.
d/ It might be a lot easier to collaborate on starting something new, than to try to turn around a community that has already actively excluded most people
e/ If no one is interested in your topic apart from a homogenous monoculture, expand the topic, e.g. by collaborating with a neighbouring field. This can make things 100x more rewarding for everyone, and take your original topic a lot further.
f/ think harder when inviting people to speak etc. The less obvious people are likely much more interesting, with new things to say.. and often obvious choices in retrospect, revealing your implicit bias.
g/ lack of diversity means a lot of pale, male and stale people (like me) taking up unwarranted time and energy (e.g. with long twitter threads). Work out ways to side step our desperate efforts to maintain hierarchies. Former radicals too often end up punching down.
After 20 years of trying to organise diverse and strange computer and electronic art events, that's kind of it, I think..
There's also things like establishing a code of conduct, etc. But that should naturally follow from c) .
The problem with c) is it can end up with an attempt to load organisational work on the already disadvantaged, so needs consideration.
The problem with c) is it can end up with an attempt to load organisational work on the already disadvantaged, so needs consideration.
