Is universal inclusion feasible? Or should we focus more on making sure that nobody is excluded
If there is any distinction here, I'm not sure how important it is.
But either way, what I mean is that inclusiveness is a messy problem. It's often addressed with platitudes rather than strategy. What's the strategy? That's really on the org, just like the rest of their work. Smart people figure out solutions to problems that actually fall within the core directives.
Who gets priority between the employee who needs service animal and the employee who is very allergic to dogs? It's probably not a solution that needs to be architected well in advance of the issue coming up. Other potential problems are much more straightforward, but from what I've seen the difference is how bought in the team is to treating inclusiveness like a core issue.
If there is any distinction here, I'm not sure how important it is.
I think there's a huge distinction, especially given how many inclusion efforts in the tech industry have been carried out. In fact, I've published an article on this very site highlighting this!
We've come to a point where terms like "inclusion" and "code-of-conduct" have been tainted in such a way that they are essentially self-defeating. I've seen many instances where people claim to feel excluded if people whom they disagree with are included.
EDIT
A perfect illustration of what "inclusivity" has come to represent, tweeted 4 hours ago:
ن Jim Duey
@jimduey
And now that it's getting useful, I'm starting to give talks at conferences about it. I was accepted to speak at @spaconference in July. And then yesterday I got this email.
If there is any distinction here, I'm not sure how important it is.
But either way, what I mean is that inclusiveness is a messy problem. It's often addressed with platitudes rather than strategy. What's the strategy? That's really on the org, just like the rest of their work. Smart people figure out solutions to problems that actually fall within the core directives.
Who gets priority between the employee who needs service animal and the employee who is very allergic to dogs? It's probably not a solution that needs to be architected well in advance of the issue coming up. Other potential problems are much more straightforward, but from what I've seen the difference is how bought in the team is to treating inclusiveness like a core issue.
I think there's a huge distinction, especially given how many inclusion efforts in the tech industry have been carried out. In fact, I've published an article on this very site highlighting this!
We've come to a point where terms like "inclusion" and "code-of-conduct" have been tainted in such a way that they are essentially self-defeating. I've seen many instances where people claim to feel excluded if people whom they disagree with are included.
EDIT
A perfect illustration of what "inclusivity" has come to represent, tweeted 4 hours ago:
Re: Your edit. That tweet is from May of 2018, not from 4 hours ago.
It was from from 4 hours ago in May of 2018, when I made the edit.
Ah my mistake - something's funky with my dev.to feed.