KatieConf(katieconf.xyz)
katieconf.xyz
KatieConf
https://katieconf.xyz/
67 comments
> Katie Conforti
Straight-up super-setting the conference name.
Straight-up super-setting the conference name.
Malkovich.
Malkovich, Malkovich.
Malkovich, Malkovich.
June 31, 2016 ?
> KatieConf is a parody
> KatieConf is a parody
It's a parody. About the lack of female speakers at tech conferences or something.
The bit: Here's all these female tech people with the name "Katie", thus you shouldn't have problems filling your tech conference with female speakers.
The bit: Here's all these female tech people with the name "Katie", thus you shouldn't have problems filling your tech conference with female speakers.
Assuming there was a speaker expert in the subject of the tech conference, who was as qualified as any non-Katie speaker.
> speaker expert
chicken/egg, though. You don't become a speaker expert without having plenty of practise at being a speaker. Irrespective of any demographic quality, we should be open to bringing new speakers to conferences.
chicken/egg, though. You don't become a speaker expert without having plenty of practise at being a speaker. Irrespective of any demographic quality, we should be open to bringing new speakers to conferences.
If there's evidence that conferences are deliberately excluding women speakers, then that is a bad thing. Not just because of sexism but because the conference would be deliberately narrowing its field of potential speakers.
But why would we favour new speakers who are called Katie (or only new speakers who are women?). We should choose speakers who are experts, and new speakers from all possible candidates.
But why would we favour new speakers who are called Katie (or only new speakers who are women?). We should choose speakers who are experts, and new speakers from all possible candidates.
> If there's evidence that conferences are deliberately excluding women speakers, then that is a bad thing.
The thing is, it's rarely deliberate. It's a subconscious bias thing. Which is why people use blind talk submissions - they're evaluated solely on the basis of the content of the talk.
The thing is, it's rarely deliberate. It's a subconscious bias thing. Which is why people use blind talk submissions - they're evaluated solely on the basis of the content of the talk.
Just to be clear, blind evaluation of talk submissions is how it should be.
BUT if at the end of that you find out that your conference has all male speakers (or all female speakers, or all speakers under 25, or whatever) what should you do about it? I would say you should try your hardest to encourage more people to apply next time. There are loads of great projects for that like Outreachy.
What you shouldn't do is decide to fill it up with some "quota people" to make it look diverse.
BUT if at the end of that you find out that your conference has all male speakers (or all female speakers, or all speakers under 25, or whatever) what should you do about it? I would say you should try your hardest to encourage more people to apply next time. There are loads of great projects for that like Outreachy.
What you shouldn't do is decide to fill it up with some "quota people" to make it look diverse.
What if conferences are accidentally excluding women speakers? Is that still a bad thing?
Yes, we should chose speakers based entirely on their qualifications. But we don't. The problem is that people somehow assume that the current status quo of speakers almost always being men is what you get when you chose based entirely on qualifications, and any change from that must make things worse.
This is not about adding women by introducing gender bias. This is about adding women by reducing gender bias.
Yes, we should chose speakers based entirely on their qualifications. But we don't. The problem is that people somehow assume that the current status quo of speakers almost always being men is what you get when you chose based entirely on qualifications, and any change from that must make things worse.
This is not about adding women by introducing gender bias. This is about adding women by reducing gender bias.
Most good talks I've seen by people who understand the material well enough to give a good talk about it, and know how to give a good talk. Sometimes this correlates with being the person with the most qualifications to have opinions on the subject, period; usually it does not.
So this page is saying that all these speakers are good generalists who can brush up on any topic and deliver a reasonable (maybe not great) talk? If you "need a bit of diversity". That's really patronising.
No, this page isn't saying that these speakers are generalists, this page is saying that people who can't find any women at all are not trying. That's the entire point of restricting the page to a subset of women named Katie, instead of saying "Here's a list of women technical speakers, pick one and replace people from your speaker lineup at random."
[deleted]
> KatieConf is a parody. Have you checked a calendar lately? There is no June 31st. Sorry. The town of Katherine does exist, though.
> KatieConf is a parody.
What's the joke?
If there are enough women named Katie to fill a compelling conference schedule, anyone running a conference who can't find women named anything at all is clearly not even trying.
Maybe it's not the organizers, but the attendees are exhibiting self selection bias? Maybe males have a stronger urge to seek reputation/fame, so are more likely apply to conferences?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-selection_bias
That's a perfectly possible reason! So, as a conference organizer or attendee, do you want talks from people who seek reputation and fame, or do you want the best speakers?
Oh, I see. Is it really true that organizers filter out some part of the demographic, or are women due to bad experience not trying to present? I didn't organize a conference, so this is a serious question.
I mean, encouraging everyone to attend, submit talks, and ensure they all feel welcome and safe is more useful than making it seem like women (or some_x) are only at a conference due to maybe a diversity quota.
I mean, encouraging everyone to attend, submit talks, and ensure they all feel welcome and safe is more useful than making it seem like women (or some_x) are only at a conference due to maybe a diversity quota.
I think part of the problem is that for (most) tech conferences the current attendee base is skewed highly male. Current attendees become confident of the conference style and then go on to present in following years.
It's like the argument, and I'm forgetting which well known tech figurehead made this, but... "We don't need more girls in CS majors, we need more girls playing around on laptops in the summers of elementary school [to put them on a more level playing field with male counterparts 10–15 years later]."
It's like the argument, and I'm forgetting which well known tech figurehead made this, but... "We don't need more girls in CS majors, we need more girls playing around on laptops in the summers of elementary school [to put them on a more level playing field with male counterparts 10–15 years later]."
The same problem exists in some societies' failure to accept male teachers in elementary school or kindergarten. The diversification experience of armed forces might provide valuable insight.
Conference talks magnify the usual biases. On the internet, nobody knows that you're a dog, but there's no way to avoid it when you're in person in front of hundreds of people. If you pick a mechanism involving speakers self-selecting (either literally an open CfP and no attempt to encourage people to submit, or encouraging people you know are good speakers to submit), you'll see the results of past biases.
[deleted]
In case anyone was wondering as to the point of the parody:
> If you are looking for speakers for your conference, why not ask one of the wonderful people featured here? They are all listed with their Twitter accounts, and a link to some of their prior talks.
> Do you really need another conference lineup of all men? Or as many female speakers as speakers called Steve?
I suspect it is a direct rebuttal to the argument that it's difficult to find female speakers for conferences, which is one I've heard a few times before.
> If you are looking for speakers for your conference, why not ask one of the wonderful people featured here? They are all listed with their Twitter accounts, and a link to some of their prior talks.
> Do you really need another conference lineup of all men? Or as many female speakers as speakers called Steve?
I suspect it is a direct rebuttal to the argument that it's difficult to find female speakers for conferences, which is one I've heard a few times before.
> "Do you really need another conference lineup of all men?"
If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity.
When the subject is one's technical knowledge, the actual genetic makeup of the person making the presentation doesn't matter. It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.
If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity.
When the subject is one's technical knowledge, the actual genetic makeup of the person making the presentation doesn't matter. It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.
> It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.
What you are saying is not controversial, but nor does it reflect reality. Conference speakers are not solely selected on the basis of being the best at what they talk on.
This is not a call to add people who are inexpert, it is a call to find experts where you don't usually look.
What you are saying is not controversial, but nor does it reflect reality. Conference speakers are not solely selected on the basis of being the best at what they talk on.
This is not a call to add people who are inexpert, it is a call to find experts where you don't usually look.
> If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity.
My understanding is that the complaint is not "these men are not qualified", but "there are women who are qualified who are systematically being ignored".
There isn't an objective ranking of subject matter experts, from which conferences simply invite the top N people. Nor, as far as I know, is anyone in favor of inviting non-qualified minorities to speak. The question is "why are qualified [women, people of color, trans people, etc.] not being invited?".
My understanding is that the complaint is not "these men are not qualified", but "there are women who are qualified who are systematically being ignored".
There isn't an objective ranking of subject matter experts, from which conferences simply invite the top N people. Nor, as far as I know, is anyone in favor of inviting non-qualified minorities to speak. The question is "why are qualified [women, people of color, trans people, etc.] not being invited?".
Implying there are no female subject matter experts.
The problem isn't that people choose expertise and skill over gender. The problem is that men greatly outnumber women for no discernible good reason, despite the availability of qualified women speakers.
It's not faux diversity. The fact that you just assume any change from the all-male status quo must be a step down is amazingly sexist and insulting.
The problem isn't that people choose expertise and skill over gender. The problem is that men greatly outnumber women for no discernible good reason, despite the availability of qualified women speakers.
It's not faux diversity. The fact that you just assume any change from the all-male status quo must be a step down is amazingly sexist and insulting.
> "The fact that you just assume any change from the all-male status quo must be a step down is amazingly sexist and insulting."
I never said anything of the sort and it's quite interesting that you read that into what I wrote. It's very clear what I meant: I don't consider the gender makeup of the people presenting to have any value, as long as the people presenting are the best people available.
> "The problem is that men greatly outnumber women for no discernible good reason"
The reason is simple: there's a lot more men in tech. For instance, StackOverflow found that 92% of devs are male. So one would expect that ~90% of presenters on software dev topics would be male. http://fusion.net/story/115998/survey-says-92-percent-of-sof...
Even today, women only receive ~20% of engineering and CompSci degrees. So, unless things change dramatically, you're still going to be looking at a pool of candidates that's significantly more male than female.
I never said anything of the sort and it's quite interesting that you read that into what I wrote. It's very clear what I meant: I don't consider the gender makeup of the people presenting to have any value, as long as the people presenting are the best people available.
> "The problem is that men greatly outnumber women for no discernible good reason"
The reason is simple: there's a lot more men in tech. For instance, StackOverflow found that 92% of devs are male. So one would expect that ~90% of presenters on software dev topics would be male. http://fusion.net/story/115998/survey-says-92-percent-of-sof...
Even today, women only receive ~20% of engineering and CompSci degrees. So, unless things change dramatically, you're still going to be looking at a pool of candidates that's significantly more male than female.
In response to the idea of an all-male speaker lineup, you said:
> If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity.
I assumed that hypothetical was meant to be plausible, because otherwise what's the point? So yes, you're strongly implying that an all-male lineup is likely to be because of qualifications, and that including women would make it worse.
I stand by my "no reason." The StackOverflow survey is obviously flawed (women often get treated badly online, so tend to be discouraged from participating in communities like SO) and if 20% of relevant degrees go to women, why do conferences typically have far less than 20% women?
> If they are the subject matter experts, then yes, I would prefer they are all present, and none of them be excluded because we are searching for faux diversity.
I assumed that hypothetical was meant to be plausible, because otherwise what's the point? So yes, you're strongly implying that an all-male lineup is likely to be because of qualifications, and that including women would make it worse.
I stand by my "no reason." The StackOverflow survey is obviously flawed (women often get treated badly online, so tend to be discouraged from participating in communities like SO) and if 20% of relevant degrees go to women, why do conferences typically have far less than 20% women?
He's saying that if the top 3 people in the field happen to be male, then yes, he'd prefer them over 2 of them and 1 random women added for the sake of diversity.
Also, all of you are acting like children. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Also, all of you are acting like children. This is getting pretty ridiculous.
Conferences usually have way more than three speakers, and the context is clearly talking about actual real-world conferences, where indeed the lineup is often 100% male. And they're implying that this typically happens because they're the most qualified.
Agreed that this is ridiculous. This is a pretty mild bit of satire, but a ton of people here are going out of their way to be offended by it. It's a great example of how many men are completely oblivious to the advantages they receive.
Agreed that this is ridiculous. This is a pretty mild bit of satire, but a ton of people here are going out of their way to be offended by it. It's a great example of how many men are completely oblivious to the advantages they receive.
I had a panel in mind, not an entire conference (we had a similar discussion in Germany a year or two ago about all-male panels). I got them mixed up for some reason.
-- edit --
I just remembered something; wasn't there a post going around the web some time ago about a woman (in Britain?) who got her talk accepted (in some sort of academic setting?) because she's a woman and not because of her talk and she didn't know that this kind of thing was going on and got really upset about it when she found out? Might be interesting to look at the situation from her angle as well. (Interesting to those of you who didn't read her story back then.)
-- edit --
I just remembered something; wasn't there a post going around the web some time ago about a woman (in Britain?) who got her talk accepted (in some sort of academic setting?) because she's a woman and not because of her talk and she didn't know that this kind of thing was going on and got really upset about it when she found out? Might be interesting to look at the situation from her angle as well. (Interesting to those of you who didn't read her story back then.)
It's strange that, to some, this is somehow a controversial statement.
For a conference to say "we couldn't find enough subject-matter-qualified women", one of the following must be true:
* The least qualified speaker on their roster is still more qualified than literally every woman currently living, or
* Something about their conference failed to attract (or worse, repelled) half the population of the planet.
The first is statistically extremely unlikely. The second is more likely, and represents a problem with the conference rather than the pool of potential speakers.
Unfortunately, telling people "the problem is with your conference and not with the pool of speakers" is a controversial statement despite being painfully obvious.
This is without getting into the "faux diversity" insult which implies that there is something about women as a class which naturally makes them less qualified (since, obviously, conferences select purely on qualifications and just coincidentally end up heavily or often entirely male) -- if you didn't believe women are inherently less qualified, you wouldn't think that having women speak was necessarily a relaxing of qualifications or only done for "diversity".
Here's another true-but-sadly-controversial statement: if you believe what you're saying, then the kind of tech conferences you'd likely run are actually affirmative action for people who look and think like you. And I bet you wouldn't want anyone saying you only got in because they give preferential treatment to people like you, right?
For a conference to say "we couldn't find enough subject-matter-qualified women", one of the following must be true:
* The least qualified speaker on their roster is still more qualified than literally every woman currently living, or
* Something about their conference failed to attract (or worse, repelled) half the population of the planet.
The first is statistically extremely unlikely. The second is more likely, and represents a problem with the conference rather than the pool of potential speakers.
Unfortunately, telling people "the problem is with your conference and not with the pool of speakers" is a controversial statement despite being painfully obvious.
This is without getting into the "faux diversity" insult which implies that there is something about women as a class which naturally makes them less qualified (since, obviously, conferences select purely on qualifications and just coincidentally end up heavily or often entirely male) -- if you didn't believe women are inherently less qualified, you wouldn't think that having women speak was necessarily a relaxing of qualifications or only done for "diversity".
Here's another true-but-sadly-controversial statement: if you believe what you're saying, then the kind of tech conferences you'd likely run are actually affirmative action for people who look and think like you. And I bet you wouldn't want anyone saying you only got in because they give preferential treatment to people like you, right?
Wow, that really says it all, doesn't it?
Set up "BenConf" with an all-male lineup clearly not chosen purely based on their qualifications, and dozens of people will pay money to attend.
Set up "KatieConf" and you get people coming out of the woodwork complaining about faux diversity, saying that gender doesn't matter and you should only choose speakers based on qualifications, saying that conferences shouldn't have to care about combating sexism, complaining that it's patronizing, etc.
Set up "BenConf" with an all-male lineup clearly not chosen purely based on their qualifications, and dozens of people will pay money to attend.
Set up "KatieConf" and you get people coming out of the woodwork complaining about faux diversity, saying that gender doesn't matter and you should only choose speakers based on qualifications, saying that conferences shouldn't have to care about combating sexism, complaining that it's patronizing, etc.
It's incredibly patronising.
Edit: Controversial comment, so let's say something positive here. I found this site to be unfunny and unclear about its message. However it's easy to improve it.
The first thing I would add to the site at the bottom would be a list of recommendations for avoiding bias in selection of candidates. These would include things like always doing blind evaluation of speaker candidates.
Secondly it would be good to talk about how to get more people involved in projects, so that in future you have a more diverse range of speakers. How to broaden access, easier onboarding, removing toxic people.
Thirdly, talk about why it's good to have more diverse opinions. Give some motivation for doing this apart from some hazy feelgood factor. (See references here: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...)
Number four, the site could link to projects like Outreachy which are already doing the above.
Edit: Controversial comment, so let's say something positive here. I found this site to be unfunny and unclear about its message. However it's easy to improve it.
The first thing I would add to the site at the bottom would be a list of recommendations for avoiding bias in selection of candidates. These would include things like always doing blind evaluation of speaker candidates.
Secondly it would be good to talk about how to get more people involved in projects, so that in future you have a more diverse range of speakers. How to broaden access, easier onboarding, removing toxic people.
Thirdly, talk about why it's good to have more diverse opinions. Give some motivation for doing this apart from some hazy feelgood factor. (See references here: http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com/stumbling_and_mumbli...)
Number four, the site could link to projects like Outreachy which are already doing the above.
Not for nothing, but "being patronised" is usually right up there on the list of common female developer complaints.
I'd just note that blind evaluation could be hard because of systematic discrimination biasing how you evaluate a candidate. For example, if you look at who has spoken at conferences before in your blind evaluation, it's blind, but biased by previous discrimination. it's the same sort of issue that crops up regularly in machine learning, where people assume that the data isn't the result of bias.
I'd say the correct way to avoid bias is to set a blind baseline of expectations (Like 3+ years in industry working with the topic) and then reach out to minorities. That said, even someone who doesn't have experience can be a good presenter if given the right support, I've seen great conference talk made by total newbies to a technology who were encouraged to write code making use of a new feature. They presented what they learned, problem spots that they found that might trip up someone new to the technology, and open sourced their app as a learning tool.
I'd say the correct way to avoid bias is to set a blind baseline of expectations (Like 3+ years in industry working with the topic) and then reach out to minorities. That said, even someone who doesn't have experience can be a good presenter if given the right support, I've seen great conference talk made by total newbies to a technology who were encouraged to write code making use of a new feature. They presented what they learned, problem spots that they found that might trip up someone new to the technology, and open sourced their app as a learning tool.
Lots of genuinely interesting speakers. Full of puns. I wish it was real.
People here are saying that this page is trying to create awareness that there are enough females in technology to ensure greater numbers of female speakers at conferences, and that conferences should try harder to achieve that.
Why is that the responsibility of the conference? As far as I'm aware most conferences call for proposals to be submitted. Whether or not anyone of a particular group applies to speak at that conference is not necessarily a fault of the conference organisers? Are there conferences that actively seek out the majority of their speakers?
I am in favour of a wide variety of speakers at a conference (the more viewpoints the better), but this seems unnecessary. I would have liked for this to be a real conference though, the topics are great.
Why is that the responsibility of the conference? As far as I'm aware most conferences call for proposals to be submitted. Whether or not anyone of a particular group applies to speak at that conference is not necessarily a fault of the conference organisers? Are there conferences that actively seek out the majority of their speakers?
I am in favour of a wide variety of speakers at a conference (the more viewpoints the better), but this seems unnecessary. I would have liked for this to be a real conference though, the topics are great.
While I think your point is superficially valid, I'd ask you this – what if you had the power to change something that you admit is less than ideal (i.e.: the lack of a wide variety of speakers, or even the exclusion of a group) – if you had that power and didn't use it, wouldn't you be part of the problem?
All of this is a vicious circle – women don't apply to be speakers at many tech conferences in equal numbers as men, possibly in large part because they don't attend in equal numbers as men and that happens in large part because it's clear they're not amongst peers – i.e.: there aren't women who are speaking in equal numbers as men and they're not seeing women in attendance in equal numbers as men, so they're less inclined to feel like it's a place for them.
Where does that system of subtle/unintentional exclusion end? Why shouldn't it be the role of the conference to encourage a breaking of that cycle?
PyCon US is a good example of a conference that did just that...
All of this is a vicious circle – women don't apply to be speakers at many tech conferences in equal numbers as men, possibly in large part because they don't attend in equal numbers as men and that happens in large part because it's clear they're not amongst peers – i.e.: there aren't women who are speaking in equal numbers as men and they're not seeing women in attendance in equal numbers as men, so they're less inclined to feel like it's a place for them.
Where does that system of subtle/unintentional exclusion end? Why shouldn't it be the role of the conference to encourage a breaking of that cycle?
PyCon US is a good example of a conference that did just that...
Aren't amongst peers? I mean I get the concern about gender imbalance, really I do, but to feel that someone is a 'peer' in a professional context really shouldn't require identical genital configurations, surely?
First off – gender isn't always equal to genitals – I gather you're trying to be light hearted in that but it's an example that highlights the fact it can be hard to understand situations outside of the mainstream.
If you reject my explanation for why there are so few women in tech and in tech conferences, I'd request you offer another one that doesn't depend on things like "they don't like math or technology", etc. The data shows that women leave tech/IT/engineering fields – why is that?
Explanations like the one I offered are simple and make sense, (of course, IMHO) and it's not really as much conjecture as you might think. A very close analogy can be seen in Schelling's Model of Segregation: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg... – essentially, it's an agent based model that shows how segregation can evolve from even a minor preference for being those similar to one's self.
It's not an indictment of men or women in tech, but it shows how even small preferences can end up having big impact.
If you reject my explanation for why there are so few women in tech and in tech conferences, I'd request you offer another one that doesn't depend on things like "they don't like math or technology", etc. The data shows that women leave tech/IT/engineering fields – why is that?
Explanations like the one I offered are simple and make sense, (of course, IMHO) and it's not really as much conjecture as you might think. A very close analogy can be seen in Schelling's Model of Segregation: http://nifty.stanford.edu/2014/mccown-schelling-model-segreg... – essentially, it's an agent based model that shows how segregation can evolve from even a minor preference for being those similar to one's self.
It's not an indictment of men or women in tech, but it shows how even small preferences can end up having big impact.
Everytime we try blind auditions we see more women being picked. It's the responsibility of the conference to guard against bias.
Don't conferences already use a blind process to determine speakers?
I thought conferences typically wanted to know who was proposing talks so they could look up people's backgrounds and such. Many have speakers in mind and reach out to them, rather than waiting for proposals to come in. I don't recall seeing any that talked about blinding proposals so they could be chosen without knowledge of who was doing the proposing. I'm sure it's been done, but I don't think it's common.
The vast majority of tech conferences do not.
Sometimes you get Curtis Yarvin.
In the days when Sussman was a novice, Minsky once came to him as he sat reviewing talk proposals for PDP-6-Con.
"What are you doing?" asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to review talk submissions," Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?" asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of who should present," Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
"What are you doing?" asked Minsky.
"I am training a randomly wired neural net to review talk submissions," Sussman replied.
"Why is the net wired randomly?" asked Minsky.
"I do not want it to have any preconceptions of who should present," Sussman said.
Minsky then shut his eyes.
"Why do you close your eyes?" Sussman asked his teacher.
"So that the room will be empty."
At that moment, Sussman was enlightened.
While I wouldn't have traveled to Australia for this, I find the concept of an idiosyncratic conference like this very cool conceptually in addition to supporting the political statement.
EDIT: I initially wrote Canada instead of Australia. Not that this changes the sentiment. Thanks for catching the error tedmiston.
EDIT: I initially wrote Canada instead of Australia. Not that this changes the sentiment. Thanks for catching the error tedmiston.
> Katherine is a town in Northern Territory, Australia.
The .xyz TLD was a red flag, if for no other reason than Namecheap is practically giving them away.
Limiting this conference to the name Kate is extremely Eurocentric. and I don't see a single black attendee.
What sort of black people do you expect to find in Australia in significant numbers?
Three is enough for a coven. After that, things get hairy very quickly. Disappointed this turned out to be a parody, it would be a marvellous and amusing thing to do.