Zaczek

scobleizer wrote:

LaBomba, I deleted your comment. I'm tired of seeing posts here noting female's looks. I don't see the men judged that way here. Does that really help the industry attract more smart women? I don't think so.

Scoble, just to satisfy your request and make the balance even: this guy is kind of cute: http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=159231

Zaczek

Charles wrote:

It's interesting that your reaction to the release of three women-in-technology-oriented videos is so negative. ... I find this constant b*tching about the WM_IN series annoying. If you don't like it, then don't watch it. Sorry about being terse, but I'm a little angry about this and not afraid to share it with you.
 
C

You are absolutely right to express your anger, Charles. Keeping it to yourself wouldn't do any good. And it's fine on a site like C9, which is about showing that MS employees are normal human beings with emotions.

I haven't watched that particular video yet, but I find the WM_IN show to be very interesting. I find it valuable when people talk about their motivations and about personal aspects of some things
they have done in terms of their carreer. Men interviewees would probably tend to avoid this type of topic and limit themselves to showing off their technical knowledge and tend to overshadow women present in the room, like it happened once or twice during this session: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=127955
Even Bill Hill does it here with his otherwise brilliant, but a bit too pushy wit: http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=147352

I think the problem is: why men never talk about their private motivations - and not: why women DO. Maybe if people behaved more like humans and less like machines with a short-circuited emotional system, the workplace would be a better place for BOTH women AND men.

Charles and Jennifer: keep up the good work!

LarryOsterman wrote:

But you might concider not using pirated versions of Windows.  You wouldn't steal from the local grocery store, would you?  So why are you stealing from me?

Larry, MS is not like a local grocery store! It's like the giant hypermarket that put all the local grocery stores in my neighbourhood out of business. And it wasn't because the hypermarket was competing fair. They got tax breaks and government support the small shops didn't.
No law has a paragraph for stealing jobs, but it's damn worse
than stealing a copy of windows!
And for all the hype, they didn't create nearly as many jobs as they helped destroy.
That put aside, nothing else like piracy helped to spread the Windows system in say, Eastern Europe. And the company knows it, as made evident by the policy of not prosecuting individual pirates.

On another note, just to say something positive: I love King Crimson, Fripp's soundscapes are great when part of KC's songs, (not when played for hours solo), but 2 seconds will be awesome!

Cornelius Ellsonpeter wrote:

Does your company teach ethics? Seriously. The videos only occasionally get at that element of your employees. And then, when confronted with a more difficult issue, such as motives, they completely back away from the discussion. Why is that? It's not like the rest of us are carrying a "holier than thou" mantra or anything although I'm sure somebody, somewhere will argue that eventually.

Every corporation puts profits before ethics, because such is their
charter by law. MS is a very successful part of that system, but that system was created before MS appeared in history and will exist after MS is gone.
 
That said, if the market demands ethics, all companies will be happy to provide a product that resembles ethics. I think that this is what is going on: the developer community clamored for openness and clarity so much that it couldn't be ignored much further without causing losses
to the shareholders. The C9 team came with what are clearly bright ideas and a clearly awesome site, and somebody was smart enough to see the value in it.

If people keep up the pressure, the company might get a little friendlier still. But in no way is it ever going to change the fundamental fact that - in the end - profit is the only thing that matters.

Charles wrote:

Image changing and customer satisfaction improvements are wonderful consequences of what we (including you) do on Channel 9. These are not the reasons behind the things we do. Does this make sense?

C

I have no doubts that you and the rest of the folks are dedicated and honest about what you are doing. Katy seemed pretty natural, too.

I don't think C9 would be such a success if anyone was contrieved and not really enthusiastic about doing it.

This doesn't change the fact that someone gives you all this freedom and lets you be natural only because it gives good marketing effects.

All the best,
Zaczek

rasx wrote:

My comments were by definition sexist. Your wish is to extend my assertions into the phrase you have been taught, "political correctness." So I agree with you that you are not sure. And I am no "problem" for the "good people of Texas" because I have no nuclear weapons. The data have been transmitted. Please parse the data. Use quotes. Do not use the uncertainty of loyal captivity.

Which parser do you use? Mine barfed on this.
And which definition are you talking about? You didn't import any definitions. Your stuff doesn't compile.

rasx wrote:

In an effort to not accuse you guys of having bad experiences with female interview subjects I cannot avoid making sexist observations. But the great thing about these 'new days' of American "liberty" and "freedom" my sexist remarks are totally insignificant to the "good people of Texas" all over the world.

I'm not sure if such comments are part of the solution or part of the problem.

I disregard political correctness for its ficticious character - trying to conjure the problem by putting enough tokens on the front page (analyze the demographics on pictures on ms.com)

But I also disregard the right-wing version of political correctness which dismisses equality as a ficticious issue. It is not.

As far as I can tell, Charles did a good job trying to make Suzanne feel confortable.

There was some tense energy
to be felt, but I don't necessarily think it's anybody's fault. I'm not sure how much can be ascribed to gender dynamics, but gender dynamics are what they are and some people might get caught in
a cross-fire of contradictory expectations (or what
they imagine society expects), especially if they are a minority gender in a given field. Especially if they are smart.

Certainly, the "geek" image is male-centered and
might be alienating for techy women i guess...
If I were Robert, I wouldn't push the geekiness talk so much... There's some gender issues with it, like with the image of hip-hop homies and the surrounding narrative.

All in all I think Suzanne did a pretty good job and I liked those interviews a lot.