> first of all, you make a 'category' that in this case encompasses roughly half the population. Then you make the strawman that I claim that this huge category has no skills. Dishonest, at best.
I didn't claim that. I said it was an implication of your line of thought. How else will you justify female participation levels at Apache that are dramatically lower than, say, American computer science degree programs. On Wed, 14 Dec 2016 at 22:19 Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: On 12/14/2016 10:22 AM, Niclas Hedhman wrote: > Rich, > I know that diversity is sold as self-interest and that more diverse > communities are (claimed to be, but I have not found any such reference to > studies in software, but I can grant that) creating better products. I am > not as ignorant as you may think. Take a look at ROSE[1]. "I would like a > job in Technology" shows an incredible disparity between boys and girls in > rich countries. One can ponder over that one alone for a long time... > "Working with People rather than Things" will then make you wonder some > more... > Other people are devoting research careers to this topic, and I don't think > the ASF has needed competence to do this properly. > > > [1] Relevance of Science Education (ROSE) study, Sjøberg & Schreiner 2010 I don't think you're ignorant at all. I know for a fact that you're not. Which is why I'm actually taking the time to try to understand what your perspective is on this. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com - @rbowen http://apachecon.com/ - @apachecon
