Women Get Pull Requests Accepted More (Except When You Know They're Women) (peerj.com) 293
An anonymous reader writes: In the largest study of gender bias [in programming] to date, researchers found that women tend to have their pull requests accepted at a higher rate than men, across a variety of programming languages. This, despite the finding that their pull requests are larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need. At the same time, when the gender of the women is identifiable (as opposed to hidden), their pull requests are accepted less often than men's.
Just a thought... (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe women ask for pull-requests more nicely?
Re: (Score:2)
But only when you don't know they are women...
Re: (Score:3)
I have no clue what gender "serviscope_minor" is.
My github ID is not servicope_minor. My name, like very github ID like very many other people's is a variation on ${firstname}${lastname}.
Maybe women that pick gender neutral user names are better coders?
Maybe women who's parents picked potentially ambiguous names make better coders because uh... it makes sense you see with hunters and gatherers and uh... because... er...
It's the internet (Score:3)
All you have to do is take a bunch of coders (men or women, doesn't matter), and have them submit a bunch of code online using a male persona, using a female persona, and anonymously (or at least gender-neutral). Then compare acceptance rate for each individual. That neatly eliminates all other fact
Re:Just a thought... (Score:5, Informative)
You may want to go read the article. Unless you think being nicer works against you on a free software project. If that is the case then I may agree with you.
Fair enough. For the TL/DR crowd, here are some of the possible explanations presented by the authors:
- Reverse-discrimination against men? Rejected, per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified.
- Women take fewer risks, and thus are more likely to provide solutions that are accepted? The authors cite a study that claims women are, on average, more risk-averse than men. However, this is inconsistent with the observation that women change more lines of code.
- Women in open-source are more competent than men? This is the hypothesis that the authors support the most. They suggest it somes about due to survivorship bias and/or self-selection and/or higher implicit performance-standards in the female population of open-source coders.
Re: (Score:3)
"Taking fewer risks" can mean things other than reducing the scope of the change. In particular, it can mean testing more thoroughly instead. In true Slashdot tradition, I didn't read the article -- did it say anything about defect rates in code
Re:Just a thought... (Score:5, Interesting)
Not all useful changes are treated the same. Bug fixes get higher priority, doing what the boss thinks is important gets more priority, infrastructure changes which overall are an improvement but which causes a need for others to fix code or learn something new tend to get lower priority. Smaller means easier to quickly understand and thus more likely to be accepted quickly. Logically some of these things getting lower priority are actually very important but get overlooked as they're not directly related to the immediate bottom line and quarlerly profits (in the corporate world anyway, though some of this exists in a slightly different form in open source).
And that's sort of what they implied. Pull requests from women tended to be larger or less likely to serve an immediate need. This is not to say that those are better or worse on merit, just treated differently.
To stereotype perhaps, the women tend work on things that need to get done in the long run and avoid quick and dirty fixes, men tend to work on things to impress the boss and worry about cleaning it up later? I have seen some small trend this way in my experience, as the worst code bases to maintain that I've worked on tended to be developed in all male groups, and easier to understand and maintain code came from mixed developers. And in my experience at least, I've see more women caring about long term architectural issues and few who were engaged in the quick and dirty check in.
Re: (Score:3)
That much stereotype in such a short post, I had to run to the bathroom to shave my neck just from reading it.
You seem to have missed that these larger, less immediate pull requests were accepted at a higher rate than the ones that were more immediate. As long as the gender is disguised. If others can see their gender, then their pulls are less likely to be accepted.
None of the weird stereotypes you spew even attempt to account for that difference. I'll give you a hint: it isn't a difference in the women th
Re: (Score:3)
Meh. TL;DR types might also find such gems:
"Research suggests that, indeed, gender bias pervades open source. The most obvious illustration is the underrepresentation of women in open source;" ... which is a fashionable non sequitur.
And as for the reverse-discrimination claim, they define a "gender-neutral" profile where they could not tell gender immediately from the github profile only. But that's not evidence that the person merging the patch could not know. They could have done the same sort of auxil
Re: Just a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
I systematically google anyone who sends me a pull request. I assume most people do the same.
Why wouldn't you be curious about that person that not only uses your software, but also took the time to fix a bug in it?
Re: (Score:3)
Why would you be interested? If someone submits a random bug fix I'm not interested in doing some kind of mental ad-hominem and rejecting it, I just evaluate their code on its merits. The only time I look further is if they suggest some larger change that needs deeper consideration, and then I start by asking them about it rather than googling them.
I respect other people's privacy, if they don't choose to share information and I don't need it for any reason I leave them alone.
Re: (Score:3)
You sound exceptionally easy to socially engineer.
If you want to avoid polluting your own process, just read the code and evaluate if you want the change.
Re: (Score:2)
They were using this argument to rule out reverse discrimination - i.e., the hypothesis that maintainers might be more inclined to merge from people they believe are female.
Re: (Score:2)
Just as an aside, it isn't reverse discrimination. There is no such thing, logically speaking. There is discrimination, for or against, any number or selection of groups. If I say I prefer blacks, I'm just as racist as if I hated them. I'm just as sexist if I only employ trans-gender people as if I refused to employ anyone who isn't a cis-gendered male. So save yourself some time, and make your comments logically and grammatically consistent. Just say discrimination.
Re: (Score:2)
One should Google: "There are no girls on the Internet"
I would have to say it's superior code that gets the attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I believe he was trying to say "practically insignificant." It's a necessary companion to statistically significant, where you look at the size of the effect and decide whether it makes any difference or not, even if it is true.
I haven't read the article so I don't know if he's right, but his general point is good. The p-value isn't the only thing that matters.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Perhaps it is simply the result of men being good feminists and rejecting pull requests from women in order to promote greater diversity and inclusion in tech. I don't know if the authors of the study also factored in race to their data analysis though.
Re: (Score:3)
That is so racist/sexist, I almost expected it to be a white male at the podium...but wow, it is a dark skinned female (I assume asian due to context in the slide). Some people just don't seem to understand what racism/sexism is.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
And that's the problem with political correctness, racism and sexism. White people cop a lot of flak for it (and rightly so, discrimination based on race or gender is ridiculous), but honestly I think it is a small minority of white people that will get up on a podium and espouse their beliefs of racial superiority. Then exactly the same happens from minority groups - and even smaller minority of that group gets up and espouses their ridiculous beliefs of racial superiority, but people "have" to listen because safe spaces and needing to give minority speakers a voice.
If your ideas are discriminatory, you should be called out on it. Regardless of your gender, colour, ancestry or personal history - none of these preclude you from being able to be a racist/sexist pig.
Unfortunately, I'm all out of mod points, but this AC raises a very good point. Racists come from all sides, and I wish as a society we were more interested in living together peacefully than pissing on each other.
Bimodal distributions (Score:4, Insightful)
The magnitude of the bias reported isn't alarmingly high so some of the things you suggest and others might be reasonable to consider as origins of the difference.
However, the change of the acceptance rate histogram from uni-modal to bi-modal when the gender is known for a woman seems to be much stronger evidence of gender bias.
The bottom axis of the histogram is rate of code rejections for an individual, and the left axis is the number of individuals with that rejection rate. When gender is not known both men and women have dominantly high acceptance rates tailing off towards low accpetance rates. However when gender is know a sharp second peak at the 90% rejection rate shows up on the women's histogram but not the men.
Thus I think what this study shows is that for the most part women work on code in ways that produces code more likely to be accepted. The fact that it tends to be longer and not something on the bug list may make their submissions different (more substantial infrastructure not defect fixes might be one interpretation). So I'm not inclined to conclude much from that. But the bimodality seems to be evidence of a strong gender bias among a small number of open source projects.
Re: (Score:2)
Rejected, per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified.
Not so sure that it is evidence of discrimination to say At the same time, when the gender of the women is identifiable (as opposed to hidden), their pull requests are accepted less often than men's.
Look at the graph in the paper.... we're talking about a less than 5% difference; actually, the confidence intervals may be very close to overlapping: a bit hard to see on the graph.
You would th
Re:Just a thought... (Score:5, Insightful)
", per the observation that there is evidence of discrimination against women when gender is identified."
Not sure how they come to this conclusion when they indicate that when the gender is identified, BOTH genders see a significant drop and men see a *greater* drop when they're known to the project. It's only when the women are unknown that their acceptance rate is lower... but even then, the acceptance rate of men and the acceptance rate of women's error bars overlap... it's entirely possible there's no difference between the genders when the contributor is unknown.
In fact, the only place in their pull request acceptance rate error bars don't overlap on p15 is where identified male insiders are rejected at a greater rate than women.
"We hypothesized that pull requests made by women are less likely to be accepted than those made by men."
Seems like bad research... start with a hypothesis and highlight areas of your study which weakly support it, ignore areas which strongly refute it.
What about me? (Score:2, Troll)
Re:What about me? (Score:5, Funny)
Have you tried Craigslist?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
You'll just have to be like the rest of us and pull yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
We're not all career programmers. (Score:3, Insightful)
What is a pull request? Is it a good or bad thing?
Re:We're not all career programmers. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Even those of us who are career programmers aren't necessarily git users, and I'm pretty sure "pull request" is a git-ism. I think it's kind of like a commit (or maybe branch merge) in more traditional version-control systems, except under the control of the project manager instead of the person submitting the code.
Re:We're not all career programmers. (Score:5, Informative)
For distributed version control systems like git, mercurial, bazaar, bitkeeper, and darcs, there's no central repository. You can have an authoritative source, which is just like every other source aside from a fancy name tag. A pull request is a request to pull (and merge) a branch from another repository.
Re:We're not all career programmers. (Score:5, Informative)
A pull request is a definitely a "git-ism". It's a request to other coders to update their own local git codebase to incorporate the changes that the requester has made. So it is like a "request to commit" to some degree, but allows for decentralization.
So, you can accept a pull request to your own personal branch/fork and it doesn't have to go on the main branch. This allows two (or more) coders to sync their branches with each other, without necessarily impacting the main branch. Then at some point, when there is full agreement among the collaborators about what they want to submit to main, the merged branch with all their work (or any one of the up-to-date branches) has a PR generated for it, and the request is made to update the main. (Or perhaps their branch just becomes a fork of the original code and now that branch is "main").
Obviously, if the PR is accepted to the main, there could be rules about who can do it and/or under what circumstances. There may be a main branch committer, or there could just be rules to allow anyone to commit, as long as they aren't the author and that they have verified the changes meet the appropriate code review and testing requirements. There's no actual difference in the mechanical aspects of it; the main branch works just like any other branch aside from the designation of that branch as the "authoritative" code base for the builds and release candidates.
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
Mr Cosby, I'm not sure this is a good time to be bragging on Slashdot.
Self-Selection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Is it possible that those women who don't feel it necessary to point out their gender in situations where gender doesn't matter tend to also be those more likely to communicate well?
Is it possible that those women who make it a point to draw attention to their gender in situations where there is no reason to bring up gender at all, are also more likely to be less convincing regarding the usefulness of their work?
Re:Self-Selection? (Score:5, Insightful)
Interesting point. Also worth asking is:
Is it possible that those developers who don't feel it necessary to point out their favorite college sports team in situations where their favorite college sports team doesn't matter tend to also be those more likely to contribute worthwhile changes? Is it possible that those developers who make it a point to draw attention to their favorite college sports team in situations where there is no reason to bring up their favorite college sports team at all, are also more likely to be less convincing regarding the usefulness of their work?
Re:Self-Selection? (Score:5, Insightful)
possible that those developers who don't feel it necessary to point out their favorite college sports team in situations where their favorite college sports team doesn't matter tend to also be those more likely to contribute worthwhile changes?
The double-negative makes it hard to parse, but I think I agree: "people who point out unimportant distractions about themselves have lower-quality submissions". Seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Never use your real name on the internet. No good can come of that.
Re: (Score:2)
Never use your real name on the internet. No good can come of that.
I use my real name when doing things on the internet in a professional context. That includes github. If I'm not identifiable as me, then how will anyone know who I am, or how to tie the github account to stuff I do with my real name, such as my company and academic work? This is the case with very many professionals, such as most of the prominent linux kernel developers.
Re: (Score:2)
I take your point for the few people working professionally with GitHub instead of the normal case for software devs.
In my case, my professional name isn't my legal name - the latter isn't anywhere on the internet. But to your point, my professional name does indicate my sex, and if I were trying to make a living with open source it would show up in GitHub.
Re: (Score:2)
In my case, my professional name isn't my legal name -
That's quite an unusual case. What made you go that way?
But to your point, my professional name does indicate my sex, and if I were trying to make a living with open source it would show up in GitHub.
Same. I don't make a living with open source, but I have some open libraries related to work I do on github. They've proven moderately popular within the application domain. I mostly made money in that area consulting/contracting and it helps to be visible.
Re: (Score:2)
That's quite an unusual case. What made you go that way?
People don't take you as seriously when you sign your emails "Talula Does The Hula From Hawaii".
Re: (Score:2)
I value my privacy. Always have. Seemed like an obvious way to go. But even my professional name only appears on the internet in my linkedin, and in the minutes of a standards committee I worked with. I can't imagine using my name for any forum, or my hobby github work, or whatever.
Re: (Score:2)
I certainly discriminate, not altogether unconsciously, against people who consistently bring up their favourite sports team in non-sports related situations.
Re:Self-Selection? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
What do you mean by "pointing out their gender"? My avatar on Github is just a portrait photo of me, looking like the guy I am.
If a women is using a portrait of herself as her avatar, does that count as "pointing out their gender" or is it simply a portrait photo?
Re: (Score:2)
That's a good question. I don't use Github, so didn't know folks there tended to use actual photos of themselves as a matter of course. Most folks in the environment I'm in have avatars that are not portraits of them- if they bother with one at all.
I suppose the following additional analysis could be done:
1. Do men who look like women tend to statistically match women or men?
2. Do women who look like men tend to statistically match women or men?
Also perhaps interesting- do men whose gender are not made appa
Re: (Score:2)
Also perhaps interesting- do men whose gender are not made apparent statistically do better than those who do?
You know the study itself is a pretty short read, right?
Anyway, yes. Everyone, both male and female, who have "gender-neutral" GitHub profiles had pull requests accepted at a higher rate than everyone who had "gendered" profiles. The difference between gendered vs. gender-neutral profile was larger than the difference between genders. Note that all that is for "outsiders" -- insiders have a higher acceptance rate overall with seemingly little difference between (male, female) x (gendered, gender-neutral).
Re:Self-Selection? (Score:5, Interesting)
First impression: somebody needs to learn about statistics that have more than one predictor variable.
Second impression: despite the lack of appropriate analysis, the differences in figure 5 are big enough to be reasonably clear. It looks like there is discrimination against anybody who has a gendered profile (maybe maintainers don't like pictures?). This discrimination might be slightly greater against outside women, and is fairly likely greater against inside men.
Third impression: the paper and the Slashdot summary have a strong gender bias; they mention only the small and borderline significant anti-female bias while ignoring the more significant anti-male bias and also the much larger anti-(either) gender identifiable bias.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't appear that the study considered "pointing out their gender" at all.
Rather, they tried to determine whether the gender of a GitHub profile was readily apparent.
Per the description of their methodology, if you use a profile image (rather than an identicon), you are automatically considered "gender is readily apparent". If that test fails, they look at the confidence level output by a gender-guessing bot of some kind. If that fails, they have a method for estimating the confidence level of a panel
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
By "feel it necessary to point out their gender", do you mean going back in time and forcing their parents to give them a gender-neutral name like "Chris" instead of an obviously gendered name like "Maria"? Because I don't quite know how to tell you this, but time travel hasn't actually been invented yet... :D
Re: (Score:2)
Because I don't quite know how to tell you this, but time travel hasn't actually been invented yet...
Time travel was invented next year.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a really obnoxious post.
When a man (like me) has a git hub account under his real name he's just a man with was git hub account. Totally neutral. When a woman uses her name she's "making a point to draw attention to get gender".
That's a colossal case of double standards that you and everyone who modded you up is guilty of.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think the OP was talking about people who use their real names. Taking Slashdot as an example, I think that examples like girlintraining [slashdot.org] or Gaygirlie [slashdot.org] are what was being referred to, the latter of which also decided to use her username to reveal her sexuality in addition to her gender. People who use their real names aren't doing so necessarily to point out their gender, they're just using their real name. People who use an anonymous username that reveals their gender apparently think that everyon
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think the OP was talking about people who use their real names.
And that's the problem. Huge numbers of people use their real names on github.
Taking Slashdot as an example, I think that examples like girlintraining or Gaygirlie are what was being referred to,
But not JustAnotherOldGuy or King Neckbeard.
People who use their real names aren't doing so necessarily to point out their gender, they're just using their real name. People who use an anonymous username that reveals their gender apparently think
Re: (Score:2)
I admit I only read part but not all. That gets me beyond most posters so here we go..
Point is that if they have a conclusion that whether one knows if the code comes from a woman or not matters, two things seem necessary:
- That they figure out who are actually women. As you say, you have to use sources outside the ones that the people deciding whether to accept the code were presumably using. If they didn't have seperate sources, there would not be the two groups to distinguish between.
- That they figure o
Tugging (Score:3)
Posted intentionally to lampoon typical responses.
I am not surprised that requests are not followed up on when a female calls for them, nor am I surprised that their responses are more often responded to when the gender is hidden/neutral. What I am surprised is that female pull requests are "larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need". Does this mean that female developers are concentrating on "big picture features" more often ?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it means that code is less likely to be small bug fixes or reactions to emerging issues, and more likely to be things like new features or architectural improvements.
Re: (Score:2)
How the fuck is leaping to a conclusion for which there isn't a shred of evidence considered "+5 insightful"?
Re: (Score:3)
I am not surprised that requests are not followed up on when a female calls for them, nor am I surprised that their responses are more often responded to when the gender is hidden/neutral. What I am surprised is that female pull requests are "larger and less likely to serve an immediate project need". Does this mean that female developers are concentrating on "big picture features" more often ?
Would that be so astonishing? We come from a hunter-gatherer society where those out hunting had to think on their feet and seize the opportunities where they presented themselves. Gathering is a lot more about planning and organization, those berries won't run away but you have to harvest when they're ripe. And the women were also taking care of the children, sick and elderly for the long term survival and passing on knowledge of the tribe. We've had many thousands years of selection pressure to that effec
RTFA ... (Score:4, Funny)
Clearly, Clarissa didn't contribute anything, and Chris may or may not have contributed anything significant, it's hard to tell.
What a crap summary (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What a crap summary (Score:4, Insightful)
To be fair, Slashdot's summary is not worse than the paper's summary.
There's a long list of issues with their methodology, and they make a fair assessment of these in the "Threats" part, which BTW should be discussed in the article, and not in the appendices.
As a whole, this paper reeks "We wanted to show how / how much women were discriminated against in Open Source. Our findings showed the opposite, so we kept making up criteria until one would exhibit (barely) the bias we wanted to denounce."
Of course when you're doing that, you're just begging to fall for this [xkcd.com].
Non-exhaustive list of other issues I noticed:
- Weighing issues: for example, how many commits from outsiders vs insiders. Given that, overall, women get better acceptance, I can conclude than insiders commit more than outsiders (in their dataset)
- Missing stats (for example, we get gendered stats on whether a pull request is linked to an issue, but no insider / outsider distinction)
- Plain old lies in the summary ("when a woman’s gender is identifiable, they are rejected more often" vs "Women have lower acceptance rates as outsiders when they are identifiable as women.")
- Failure to mention that the error bars are for the strict dataset. I suppose this is standard practice, but the dataset error bars are probably swamped by the non-representativity of the dataset in the first place, and the methodology shortcomings, which means that they're misleading (nobody cares about their dataset). They don't make any effort to evaluate these errors (obviously that would be the hard part), and leave us with some hand-waving like "we are somewhat confident that robots are not substantially influencing the results".
- Graphs that start at 60% to exaggerate differences (without using broken axis)
- Using "theory" for "hypothesis"
Problem with this article (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Baloney Charts (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Chart on page 10 is completely acceptable. It contains a lot of data, all of which is constrained to the 60-90% range, the range is clear, and the chart isn't really deceiving.
Page 13 similarly has a lot of data and doesn't really deceive. All extending the bars down to 0% and up to 100% would do is make it harder to read. However, it would work better as a table.
Chart on page 15 is a standard example of data that doesn't need a bar chart. Even with the narrowed range, most differences are difficult to see.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
That chart is correct and follows best-practices. Only column charts must have the axis at zero.
It is okay not to start your y axis at zero [qz.com]
When should the y axis of a graph start at zero? [stackexchange.com]
And a fun one:
The most misleading charts of 2015: fixed [qz.com]
Re: (Score:2)
From number 1:
Always use a zeroed y-axis with column and bar charts. Of course column and bar charts should always have zeroed axes, since that is the only way for the visualization to accurately represent the data. Bar and column charts rely on bars that stretch to zero to accurately mirror the ratios between data points. Truncating the axis breaks the relationship between the size of the rectangle and the value of the data. There is no debating this one (except for a few except
Stupid study is stupid (Score:3, Interesting)
First off they trumpet the fact that they discovered that women's merge acceptances were higher than mens. It's only when they sliced the one hundred thousands of accounts for "gender confirmation" that they decided that bias existed because success rates went from 72% to 64% - The error deviation of that alone should cover the spread.
Secondly the sample rating is awful - They compare TWO MILLION male checkins to ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND female checkins without any criteria for context, quality, need or style... just "quantity" and say that because the PERCENTAGE RATES FOR ACCEPTANCE are "higher" it must mean the women programmers are "Better" when comparing 2 sample sets with 20x the difference of checkins as they're all EQUAL.
Sorry. That's BS.
This is not science, this is propaganda statistics and poor statistics at that but I'm sure they made full use of their government funding to study gender issues in STEM fields.
Cherry picked results (Score:5, Informative)
The interesting thing the study actually found was that pull-request acceptance rates dropped for BOTH males and females when the gender of the requester could be inferred from their username or avatar picture. In some categories that rate dropped more for males, and in others the rate dropped more for females.
But they ignored the drop in rates for males and considered only the drop in rates for females when jumping to their conclusion of "gender bias".
Not a great article unfortunately. (Score:2)
I don't doubt there's bias against women, nor I want to mansplain the results at all. However I care deeply about good science and reliable facts. This article is not very good at showing clearly that this bias exists. Here are a few major problems with it:
1. Are the samples of women and men who post on GitHub representative of all open source programmers? I would think that women tend to contribute publicly less than man, and tend to disclose their gender less than men, and this probably biases the sample.
Here we go again (Score:2)
Why is this poorly-researched inflammatory crap on Slashdot again?
Is someone looking to siphon yet more funding away from gender-neutral coding projects and into more "X for women" programmes?
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc (Score:2)
The study has not shown what the submission or the study says it shows. What it shows is that when separated into two groups, women who self identify as women and those who don't, the two groups have their submissions pulled at different rates.
There is nothing in the study to show that the two groups are comparable in their ability to code. Another way to look at the numbers in the study would be to say that women who self identify as women are not as good at coding as those who don't. Both statements are e
pull request acceptance != bias (Score:3)
The whole premise seems to be accepted pull requests = accepted developers. I mean they say:
"To what extent does gender bias exist among people who judge GitHub pull requests?
To answer this question, we approached the problem by examining whether men and women are equally likely to have their pull requests accepted on GitHub, then investigated why differences might exist."
The authors note that women are more likely to submit pull requests that aren't tied to existing open issues. They seem to conclude that this reinforces the idea that women have the best track records, that these requests are the hardest to get accepted.
"Thus, if women more often submit pull requests that address an immediate need and this is enough to improve acceptance rates, we would expect that these same requests are more often linked to issues."
I interpret that totally the other way. The paper equates getting a pull request accepted with being accepted, that's just not how (in my experience) development works. If you submit a patch for some feature add that only you've thought of, and it conflicts with nothing else, it's easy for a maintainer to accept. A patch for a known, open issue is much more likely to have regression considerations, and compete with other patches. If five people all submit a patch for one issue, odds are good at least four of them are going to be rejected. It's kind of like measuring an employee's productivity by how many lines of code they write. Experienced developers see that as largely silly.
Bad statistics (Score:3)
First statistical conclusion in the article is faulty: the significance is based on a chi square with df = 3,064,667. Every difference is significant with a df that high. The second statistical conclusion has the same error: significant, but the difference here is marginal. These people should really think if the underlying data truly only represents a difference in gender and all other possible variables are identical.
But a large part of the article focuses on arguments like "they feel dejected" while in reality the numbers hardly differ. Not only that, they are even in the women's favor, even on the first request. How can you then complain about feelings of dejection or abandoning because of "an unreasonably aggressive argument style" (as if women are by definition incapable of that)? No, it's just clutching at straws because they have to write an article.
But it's the final graph that is the nail in the coffin of this article: even with their self-chosen statistics, there is no difference in acceptance rate for men and women when gender is known (although "known" is too strong a word), even in the outsider category. They then phrase it like this: "There is a similar drop for men, but the effect is not as strong" while not having even the cheapest statistical argument to support it. That's the best they can come up.
So the conclusion of this article should be: women have a slight advantage in pull requests on github. The rest is FUD.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You're absolutely right. The fact 50% of domestic violence victims have 0% of federal funding and shelters, and 50% of rape victims aren't even legally recognized, is a real and serious problem.
Manufactured "discrimination" about pull requests is neither real nor serious.
Re: (Score:2)
You're absolutely right. The fact 50% of domestic violence victims have 0% of federal funding and shelters, and 50% of rape victims aren't even legally recognized, is a real and serious problem.
I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there are massive problems with how male victims of domestic violence and rape are treated. Problems exist in how we treat men and problems exist how we treat women. We shouldn't ignore either class.
Re: (Score:2)
Manufactured "discrimination" about pull requests is neither real nor serious.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a whole article on how it's real. The only reason you have for it not being real is that you really really really don't want it to be. You've provided no counter to anything in the article, no facts and no reasoning. At this point it's clear you are simply content to invent facts to fit your world view.
And your other point is just inane. There's always worse stuff going on. If that's a reason to ignore something then why are you paying attention to mere domestic violence victims when there's mass to
Re: (Score:3)
There's a whole article that I can use to teach undergrads about how fraudulent methodology can fabricate any result you want. Their methodology is, as usual for a socjus "study", total garbage and their results are neither statistically significant nor are their conclusions based on sound logic.
Re: (Score:3)
Then why are SJW's the only ones wanting to push the whole "gender 'issue'" as a "problem"?
It has not been an issue until:
They could make it an issue
They could silence all meaningful criticism
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If you killing yourself would mean I'd see the acronym "SJW" less often on Slashdot, then by all means go right ahead.
Re: (Score:3)
It's the ultimate ad-hominem. When you don't like what someone is saying, when it makes you uncomfortable, just call them an SJW. It signals to others that they should be modded down.
It's basically doing exactly what they accuse SJWs of, only it's fine for them because they are just cutting through the bullshit.
Re: (Score:2)
If you killing yourself would mean I'd see the acronym "SJW" less often on Slashdot, then by all means go right ahead.
How enlightened of you.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, at this point I pretty much just immediately flip the bozo bit on anyone who uses the term "SJW" non-ironically. It conveys no useful information except that the person using it is... um... possibly a troglodyte.
Re:oh ffs already (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, it doesn't look like anyone here is calling for diversity quotas or any other particular action. I'm sure some people will use this to point out why company X needs some program or some such stuff, but take umbrage with them or their policy, not the scientists who made an observation.
Re: (Score:2)
Can we stop it with yet another SJW troll story. Seriously. I get it, I know I'm supposed to kill myself since I have a penis.
We're not supposed to kill ourselves. We're supposed to be less of an asshole.
Have you stopped beating your spouse?
Re: (Score:3)
Congrats, you are not an asshole.
Re: (Score:3)
I checked it in but my pull request was rejected :(
Re: (Score:3)
I just want to add it if this is the case, it may certainly affect his pull requests.
Re: (Score:2)
Given that you likely never did development, well, here you go. [lmgtfy.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Clearly, we're supposed to get mad that the research was ever even done and then stomp on it as hard as we can to make it go away.
Sometimes research results are just research results. They may not indicate any particular course of action. But lots of people will flip the fuck out anyway because they think that the facts will be used to push action in a direction they don't like.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no what are we supposed to think?
How about you use the article for facts and figure out what to think for yourself based on that. Or you know just let someone think for you and parrot the opinions. Either's good.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok great hypothesis equating outsider women to the ultimate evil on the internet.
Now, have you done a study and got evidence for your hypothesis or is nothing more than a fond notion of yours?
Re: (Score:2)