loomio

Agree completely. I understand the deeper issues and concepts being discussed - because I'm the kind of person that happily takes time out of my weekend to re-read Stallman essays from 2007. However, as a SaaS startup trying to communicate with non-geek end users about our AGPL-licensed FLOSS product, we have found the misunderstandings caused by the term "free" insurmountable.

Our choices are to use "open source", which more or less gets it across to lay people completely unaware of the subtleties, use "free software" and then launch into some long-form explanation of why we also charge money (of course anyone can grab the code for free and run their own instance but most of our customers don't care about any of that), or say FLOSS or Libre and it's totally unintelligible to most people and they stop paying attention before we've gotten anywhere.

Unfortunately I don't think this problem will be constructively progressed until it evolves past the realm of geeks arguing about it amongst themselves, and actually is approached as a marketing issue. Perhaps the reason the debate is still festering is there hasn't been much alignment of incentives between the marketers and the geeks to work together on it, because most software companies don't try to mutually hold the values of Free Software and commercial profit. But we won't see Free Software and its underpinning values go mainstream until that happens, and I think it would be good for everyone if it did.

Did you even read the article? The author self-identifies as a feminist. Your implication that this is about feminism vs not-feminism is simplistic and missing the point.

We got rejected for www.loomio.org - oh well.

> To be competitive, we need to build diverse organizations where people have different strengths.

Exactly. And if your hiring process locks out someone who does not have a certain strength (such as negotiation), which is not directly relevant to their job (such as programming), you will miss out on people who could have great skills in the area that is relevant to what you're hiring for. This is unfair to potentially strong candidates, and bad for your company.

People are very willing to admit that most interviewing processes simply select for people who are good at interviewing, and tests select for people who are good at test taking - these methods sometimes overlap with what you're actually trying to measure, but are obviously flawed in many ways. The same goes for negotiating, which may have a tangential correlation with being an effective programmer in some contexts, but certainly not very directly.

Ellen Pao is trying to send a signal to people who are good at what they do, but put off or intimidated by playing hardball over salaries. If you like negotiating, you're not the intended audience.

There's plenty of discussion on Hacker News about people management, culture-building, social issues, work-life balance, personal development, etc. Usually as it relates to tech and startups, but that's to be expected.