It doesn't sit well with me that Ashe is trivializing the time commitment with 'oh they're just white dudes', when it's usually more a case of 'they love what they do and they make time for it'. If writing open source gives you the competitive edge in the market then that's great no-one should feel guilty about edging others out of higher profile work because they represent their skills better at recruitment. The drivers aren't geared to social wedging (seriously who even has time for that crap?), I think open contribution is more about skill, creativity and passion than anything else. Race, minorities, gender, orientation has ZERO to do with anything, stats are only corrolary. Where are the stats that OSS engagement is becoming a trending hire filter?
It kind of reads like a no-child-left-behind or no-child-gets-ahead (can't remember which) proponent piece. We all have busy lives and saying its a race/gender etc. issue is way off the mark. I wish that whole section was left out as it just confuses the pretty simple point I think she was trying to make that open source engagement should not be an authoritative filter.
I honestly don't think anyone is trivializing anyone's commitment. Rather, I think what Ashe and James are pointing out is that the opportunity to contribute to OSS is not distributed equally between the sexes and races. Who's to say that more minorities wouldn't contribute to OSS if they had the time, access, and resources?
Or, to take it to an extreme, why is Silicon Valley in California and not Botswana? Do you believe that the people of Botswana are inherently less intelligent? less motivated? less capable?
Or is it their environment which is working against them? Jared Diamond has probably one of the most interesting takes on how these sorts of inequities can arise on a regional level (Germs, Guns, and Steel: http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/03...), but is it such a stretch to imagine that the same sorts of inequities don't exist at smaller scales as well?
It kind of reads like a no-child-left-behind or no-child-gets-ahead (can't remember which) proponent piece. We all have busy lives and saying its a race/gender etc. issue is way off the mark. I wish that whole section was left out as it just confuses the pretty simple point I think she was trying to make that open source engagement should not be an authoritative filter.