Thread on what it really means to look for marginalised contributors in your spaces.
The applications of this go far beyond publishing.
Over the years I've done a lot of work at the boundaries of different communities, as an editor, curator, competition judge, advisor for industry conferences and program committee member for academic ones, as a hiring manager.
Over the years I've done a lot of work at the boundaries of different communities, as an editor, curator, competition judge, advisor for industry conferences and program committee member for academic ones, as a hiring manager.
And in that time I've radically reformed what I think that kind of role is about.
Yes, I do care about "maintaining standards", when those standards are about allowing in people who treat others well, and removing those who do not.
But beyond that?
Yes, I do care about "maintaining standards", when those standards are about allowing in people who treat others well, and removing those who do not.
But beyond that?
I think the function, at its best, is something much, much more active, organic, and outward facing than gatekeeping.
It's about actively seeking and finding the people who can bring what is missing from your community or your team. It's about helping them overcome any obstacles that might make it hard to participate.
It's about giving them enough background about the space they're entering that they can expect to feel comfortable and succeed there.
It's also about how you speak _about_ them to the community, how you advocate for their presence and explain its value.
It's also about how you speak _about_ them to the community, how you advocate for their presence and explain its value.
Weird as this may seem, the metaphor I keep coming back to is one of those active pumps on a cell wall, bringing in the things the cell would die without
By no stretch have I always managed to do this well, to be clear. I have unquestionably screwed up in many ways, large and small.
But much that I was taught about meritocracy and supposedly-objective standards of quality, I've found to be deeply false.
But much that I was taught about meritocracy and supposedly-objective standards of quality, I've found to be deeply false.
It is still meaningful to talk about whether work is good or not (especially if we ask "good for what purpose?"). I've rejected plenty of things from plenty of places.
But "this talk/paper/artwork isn't going to bring us what we need" is such a different kind of answer from "this isn't good enough in some absolute sense" or "you're not good enough".
Along the same lines, I often hear "this person lacks the skill/expertise to contribute to our conversation" when that says at least as much about the conversation as it does about the person.
Yeah, I love a jargon-heavy chat with someone who shares specific background with me
Yeah, I love a jargon-heavy chat with someone who shares specific background with me
And sometimes it makes sense to select a group to facilitate that. Some of those conversations are productive. But it's good to be clear that that's what we're doing. Designing for a particular experience for a particular set of people, seeking a particular set of outcomes
And not, as it is _so_ often framed, Having a Super-Elite Amazing Group Just for the Awesome People Who Measure Up
