> Removing barriers to meritocracy would do just as well.
Meritocracy is not an objective, defined term, even in rote, technical jobs.
Further, people are very, very bad at hiring based on merit. There have been tons of studies showing that people tend to hire people who are like them (culturally, racially, gender, etc.)
Quotas are not harmful unless there are too few qualified people to meet the quota, resulting in a less-qualified person getting a job.
GitLab has hundreds of millions of people to choose from. They're not going to run out of qualified women.
neither is race or gender, yet these initiatives still manage to exist.
> There have been tons of studies showing..
there are tons of studies that are non reproducible too, so which studied are the strongest evidence of this claim?
> Quotas are not harmful unless there are too few qualified people
if you reduce it to a binary definition of "qualified", maybe. But if the best person for a role, their qualification, is a continuum, then you can do harm simply by hiring qualified candidates over better qualified candidates.
> GitLab has hundreds of millions of people to choose from
Meritocracy is not an objective, defined term, even in rote, technical jobs.
Further, people are very, very bad at hiring based on merit. There have been tons of studies showing that people tend to hire people who are like them (culturally, racially, gender, etc.)
Quotas are not harmful unless there are too few qualified people to meet the quota, resulting in a less-qualified person getting a job.
GitLab has hundreds of millions of people to choose from. They're not going to run out of qualified women.