Coding with EFF | Hacker News Reader

Coding with EFF

eff.org

96 pointssinak22 comments

IPFS, the interplanetary file system, is a project that the EFF should consider promoting: https://github.com/jbenet/ipfs

There are two implementations in progress, a Go version and a NodeJS version.

Is there a place where we can pitch new project ideas?

I suggest sending e-mail to staff technologists at EFF.

https://www.eff.org/about/staff

Maybe rather than e-mailing every technologist, pick 1-3 of us whose previous or current work seems most related to what you want to suggest. :-)

Start new project on Github? :)

EFF is fun to work with.

In what way?

One way, is learning. This week I learned several ways to increase the security of websites, just from architecture & code reviews.

>We're also hiring a full-time Staff Technologist or Senior Staff Technologist. Women and minorities are encouraged to apply.

Calling out women and minorities like this doesn't sit right with me.

Me neither. Calling out any group , in my opinion, creates a stronger feeling of separation between that group and whoever else is lumped into the deal.

It's becoming standard practice, but I feel like it's at best a positive P.R. stunt about X company's diverse hiring practice, and at worst mildly counter-productive towards the whole "people one-ness" (sorry, can't think of a good term) goal.

The only time I'm okay with such statements is when there are extraneous circumstances which allow for a group which wouldn't normally be considered. Example : "Teens between 13 and 18 welcome!" referring to an event that takes place at a venue that is normally 18+ only.

> It's becoming standard practice

Its been a common practice for, I think, about half a century. Its certainly not "becoming a standard practice" now.

"We are an equal opportunities employer and welcome applications from all suitably qualified persons regardless of their race, sex, disability, religion/belief, sexual orientation or age".

Suggested wording for job ads in UK from an employer's organisation. See

http://www.ipa.co.uk/page/job-posting-guidelines

Lower in that page it does mention 'positive action' programmes. Here is some sample wording for a 'positive action' programme vacancy

"we welcome applications from everyone irrespective of gender and ethnic group but, as women and members of ethnic minority groups are currently under-represented at this level of post, we would encourage applications from members of these groups. Appointment will be based on merit alone"

From...

http://hr.leeds.ac.uk/info/21/advertising/150/equality_and_i...

The general idea seems to be to separate the encouragement to apply from the selection process.

Ask ten women/minorities if they feel the same way, then ask ten white dudes. If you find a discrepancy between the two groups, then ask yourself if that isn't actually an indication that that call-out is in fact doing the job it was intended to do.

That is an indication that there is a discrepancy between the groups in how they view the issue, it does not mean that one group is correct.

As an Australian living in Japan I found it really spoke to me.

How about if they were hiring a Nanny for their kids and said "Men are encouraged to apply." Would that be strange too?

Deleted comment

> I'm not quite sure why the down votes...

Mine was because "I don't like this piece of text" isn't a substantive contribution to the conversation.

> Calling that statement is a lot like saying, "If you aren't a minority or a woman you are not really welcome to apply."

No, its not.

> I know that isn't the intent..

Right, which is exactly how it isn't like what you said. Because the message it communicates to the reader isn't like what the other one communicates, and the fact that you read it and know immediately that that isn't what is being communicated illustrates that perfectly.

> so long as you need to make special welcomes to groups of people in general the problem persists.

I would reverse those: so long as the problems of racism and sexism -- and the resulting implicit hostility exists -- explicit welcome may reasonably be perceived as necessary.

Were you two born yesterday?

This is standard text on job listings.

For those downvoting me I went to moster.com and looked for software jobs in new york and literally picked the first one I saw for a software engineer. It said

"Bloomberg is an equal opportunity/affirmative action employer and we welcome applications from all backgrounds regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity, veteran status, disability, or any other classification protected by law."

I hate how they lump "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" together, when they are fundamentally different things.

"Equal opportunity" means we will hire the best candidate regardless of their race/religion/sex/etc.

"Affirmative action" means we will give preference to candidates that aren't white or Asian males.

> I hate how they lump "equal opportunity" and "affirmative action" together, when they are fundamentally different things.

They aren't different different things -- one is a goal, one is a mechanism serving that goal. "Affirmative action" in employment refers specifically to affirmative action to achieve equality of opportunity -- the term and "equal employment opportunity" came into use in the US at the same time, from associated legal mandates in the 1960s; "Affirmative Action" in hiring, as a term, originates with a mandate in Executive Order 10925 (1961) requiring federal government contractors to "take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin" (nearly identical language -- differing from the quoted text from EO 10925 only in that "creed" is replaced with "religion" -- is in EO 11246, of 1965, which is still in effect) and was further used for remedial action that could be applied to address specific employment discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964; see, particularly, 42 USC ch. 21, subch. VI -- titled "Equal Employment Opportunities" -- sec. 2000e-5(g).

> "Affirmative action" means we will give preference to candidates that aren't white or Asian males.

No, it does not.

I believe broodbucket was using "equal opportunity" in the sense of "equal opportunity employer", which explicitly means that the employer does not discriminate (on protected classes). Affirmative action is would be the employer discriminating to the benefit of disadvantaged groups with the intent proving them equality in a broader sense, but it is still discrimination. Historically, one of the major legal hurdles to affirmative action has been that it is discriminatory.

I didn't downvote you for pointing out it's standard text on job listings. I downvoted you because of the "Were you two born yesterday?" question which is rude and unnecessary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com