It doesn't seem like it comes from an attitude too far removed from congressmen being proud of not understanding tech issues because it's all nerd stuff.
Edit: A facebook comment on the article really showcases the sentiment, just more explicitly: "So keep them in the basement, feed them pizza and Redbull and let them wear what they need. Does the gardener wear a tux and bowtie?"
I thought the story at the end was interesting, where Obama points out the suit-wearing techie and he replies, "This is literally only because you’re here." What happens if you're invited to a meeting with the President and you don't wear a suit?
There is enough campaign photos with that situation to say that the President doesn't care, and has too packed a schedule to focus on anything but getting the job done. The issue with 'nerds' is far more likely to be verbal communication ("What is a 'normalisation of a database'?") then puns on their t-shirt.
Please consider that the condescension could be perceived and not intended. I know personally that Bob McMillan is not the kind of journalist to make such insinuations.
Personally, I think it's OK to hold professional writers accountable for what their words convey. If not intended, he still should have been able to realize how others would interpret it.
Everybody makes mistakes and this isn't a huge one, but part of making mistakes is getting called on it.
> Personally, I think it's OK to hold professional writers accountable for what their words convey.
Now there's a classic constitutional issue. The law is pretty clear on this -- if you want to offer a quack medical treatment and you advertise it, you might be arrested for misleading the public and/or practicing medicine without a license. But if you put the same words in a book or magazine article that's not an advertisement, you're safe.
If a writer plagiarizes, he might be sanctioned by his employer or gain a bad public reputation. If a writer libels someone, he could be sued in civil court. But writing is safe in ways that most things aren't, based on the idea that we should allow free expression of ideas.
A writer can say virtually anything in a book or a publication that's not an advertisement, not part of commerce, and not expected to be a reflection of fact.
When I say "hold accountable" here, I'm just talking about criticizing the writers for the implications of what they say, even if they didn't necessarily mean to imply that.
It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue of anything you mentioned here.
That expression isn't open to interpretation -- it means made to suffer consequences that result from prior actions.
> It's not a constitutional issue. It's not a legal issue. It's not an issue of anything you mentioned here.
It's all those things. You don't get to define words any way you please in a public forum -- even though you certainly have the right to express yourself any way you please.
Quote: "Under state laws, a person must reach a certain age before they can be held accountable in both civil and criminal matters."
How hard is that, for someone with an open mind?
And do you really downvote other people's posts solely because they try to correct your misuses of English? You do see the risk, don't you? That you will remain ignorant forever?
A lot of words have special legal meanings. That doesn't mean they don't hold other meanings outside of a legal setting. Since I never referred to anything legal, the legal definition does not apply.
I'm not downvoting your posts. Stop jumping to conclusions.
These lame baity titles are usually written by lame baity title specialists. Wired has been doing this a lot more lately. Perhaps they hired someone to Get Those Clicks Up.
You're right—the article itself is considerably better. It's quite noticeable, in fact. Pity the author can't just tell us what he would have called it.
(It's a moot point in the current case, though, because this story had a full airing on HN yesterday.)
> These lame baity titles are usually written by lame baity title specialists.
Indeed there are many fingerprints on a story even if it has only one name on the byline. Increasingly so in a world where there are "production" help from folks who are not strictly editorial (adding image assets or changing things for SEO purposes, for example).
> Pity the author can't just tell us what he would have called it.
Wired uses WordPress and WordPress creates a title slug on first draft save. It appears McMillan likely started with "The White House Dickerson" before it was sanitized, since that slug doesn't seem modified for keywording purposes (http://codex.wordpress.org/Function_Reference/sanitize_title)
As someone who doesn't know Bob McMillan personally (and so don't have that context when reading his articles), the title attached to an article is an important cue that should be considered.
Yes, I understand he probably didn't have final approval over the title. However, Wired as an organization is responsible for the presentation and content of the article; and the impression I came away with was one of Wired, not of Bob McMillan.
I'm a bit annoyed with the title--I take great offense that somehow I'm not an "adult" because I'm not wearing some bullshit costume when not in a customer-facing position.
Seriously, software is eating the world (lol), and it's still funny to treat developers as infantile? Christ.
Your "customer" as someone working for the Executive Office of the President is almost invariably high level leadership.
Choosing to flagrantly break the convention of the business makes you like a prima-donna and is an obstacle to your own success. Why blow the large investment of political capital that the POTUS is investing in you to get past stupid political problems caused by wearing inappropriate material.
This goes both ways -- if you stroll into a Valley company in a three-piece suit, people are going to look at you funny and discount your advice.
(note: this is musing on my part, not necessarily what is being thought by those in charge)
So, there's a lot of interesting signalling at work, right? Clearly, if you want to show "Hey, we're serious about improving the tech issues in government--so much so that we're willing to try new ideas and get out of our comfort zone" the simplest way of doing that (far simpler than, say, granting actual authority, spending money, or whatever else) is to "allow" these coders in in their native dress.
It gives you PR opportunities which might help lure in more developers and let the public think "oh golly they've got smart-looking folks working for them...they must be serious!". It lets you easily identify who is probably part of the tech branch, because they dress differently than everyone else given the opportunity.
This additionally helps create a bit of minor strife between them and everyone else: you have a way of constantly reminding other departments that you can embed people in them they wouldn't otherwise like and make it stick, that you can grant leniency to those you favor, and that you can deny assistance that they (internally) know that they need by withholding the wiz kids (who, again, are easy to spot).
Additionally, you end up with a mild antagonism which helps scapegoat the nerds if they don't work out: "Oh, yeah, well, they just didn't fit in--didn't even bother to dress like us. Sorry about that, we'll bring back the old contractors...they knew how be respectful (read: behave)".
~
I'm generally loathe to dive into such power-politics and scheming, but if there's one place it may actually be happening, it's DC.
I've worked extensively in government, although not at the Federal level.
That distinction is a double-edged sword. Life in a government bureaucracy is different than in the real world. There is very little distinction in terms of compensation, so leaders measure status by other measures: control, headcount, etc.
If you're trying to affect change, the smart bureaucrats will "support" you, but stand back and do little to help you. (Remember the President has a shelf-life, they just need to delay two years) But when your elite programmers wearing shorts and flip-flops have any kind of issues, they will immediately turn on and marginalize them. It's easy to target "them", because they stick out like sore thumbs.
As a self-contained group working for the ultimate big shot, your air cover is then at risk, because the people surrounding the commissioner/mayor/governor/president will distance their principal from any potential of failure.
Why does this advice apply to the programmers but not the people hiring the programmers?
Requiring programmers to wear suits is just as much "choosing to flagrantly break the convention of the [programming] business" as not wanting to wear a suit to a government job.
In a situation like this, it'll come down to who wants it more. The government has a tough time recruiting people for big computer projects. Programmers have an easy time finding jobs at the moment. So guess who wants it more.
People get treated like children when they behave like children. This isn't specific to software developers, though. I see grown men wearing shorts and flip-flops quite frequently. These people are stuck in childhood. Where I work the carpenters are consistently better-dressed than the hackers, just by way of having pants and shoes. That's a bit sad, to me. I actually feel like I'll be ridiculed if I wear a collared shirt to work, although there is an identifiable backlash of properly-dressed adults in the office, which I applaud.
Anyway, I find it regrettable if the image of the profession is one of disheveled, slovenly, overgrown babies. I don't think that's healthy and I doubt it contributes much to diversifying away from white males.
Where do you work? Here in the Midwest, I've had only one job where I've been able to wear jeans. Every other tech job has required business casual, meaning a button-up and slacks same as everyone else in the company (except the sales guys, they generally wear suits).
If you don't agree with the dress code of the company (and especially if you disagree that strongly), the company culture might not be a great fit for you. I've grown up expecting California tech workers to dress like Kevin Rose. I've grown up expecting everyone else to dress in business casual. I wouldn't say the image of the profession is necessarily disheveled. It depends on where you are and what company you work for.
Developers have realized that the technology of fashion, just like that of software, doesn't need to be stuck in the past. There's nothing slovenly or disheveled about wearing nice jeans or nice shorts instead of stuffy slacks.
Suits can look amazing, but they are just one tiny corner of the realm of possible styles, and nobody likes being backed into a corner.
You're claiming that forcing people to wear expensive (to buy and maintain) clothing that is hideously uncomfortable in any climate (other than its place of origin in the British Isles), and that is designed to enforce conformity with the most reactionary norms of the prevailing culture promotes "diversity"?
I've been contracting for fifteen years across many work environments, but I can only count on one hand people I'd describe as 'slovenly overgrown babies' who'll roll home after work and play EvE and Minecraft until 2 AM.
>One thing that’s even more important than the latitude to ditch a tie is the latitude to chose the best tool for the job.
I hope they don't lose sight of the fact that in a large organisation, "the job" includes not just the technical solution, but also maintenance and management of that solution across potentially long periods of time by potentially many different people, integrating with many other teams, with limited resources, in a domain which you as a developer don't necessarily have a deep understanding of, and against a background of legacy solutions that can't easily be changed, and with large-group politics in play.
In other words, people don't choose Java and Windows because they're idiots. It's because there are other forces at work beyond just picking the technically optimal solution.
On one hand, it is entirely to easy to look back or even laterally at the decisions people make and fault them for choices driven by circumstances that may not be obvious.
On the other hand, there are plenty of people whose justification for such decisions begins and ends with how well it fits in their own comfort zone and/or how it affects their headcount.
Both of these things are prevalent in Government.
It's a serious balancing act to navigate those forces in managing or reforming existing systems - far harder than building the same with a clean slate.
The materials to come out of the USDS so far have been right on point so I feel confident that this part will receive the same sort of attention, but I have noticed the seeming absence of attention to O&M thus far.
The point is that developers should have the freedom to pick from all existing tools, not the limited selection which have passed a lengthy and expensive procurement process. It's okay to pick Java and Windows, but only if you actually got to choose them, and they weren't the only options on the table.
I'm blanching at the term "coder", myself. It implies badly managed offshore labor just there to soak up billable hours that isn't capable of independent thought.
"Government issued Blackberry". I wouldn't worry about them getting too cutting edge.
I contracted for the US Govt. deep in their IT - several years ago. My takeaways were that, they get a bad rap for being that much worse than the private sector as far as knowledge and ability.
Also, the pay was higher for their regular employees than I expected, and the benefits. It can be a great great package compared to the private sector. If you're interested in job security (keep your head down for 20 years - can take the monotony of the types of problems - retire early with a great deal). Job security in the private sector went bye-bye a while ago.
I'm comparing with typical private sector IT jobs in the USA, not the bizarre inflated SV world of the present time where kids seem to be laughing at 200k.
I worked for a government agency as an intern, in software, for a few years and they were issuing iPhones by about 2010 which is about the same time at which Fortune 500 companies were doing it.
This is a pretty big deal. The ability to let individuals just focus on their work is important, but probably more importantly - the currency of Washington, D.C. and government is communication. Like any large institution, there are customs built in to tell stakeholders that this institution is here to stay. Any slight changes are areas of interpretation for everyone involved.
But something as simple as this is a great way to communicate that things are changing. It means that someone is so highly valued that they are important (disregarding the condescending title). Because if there is one way people in D.C. communicate, they communicate through how they dress.
It sounds like there still is a restrictive dress code:
"He isn’t showing up in a T-shirt, but he’s free to wear a wrinkled button-down and comfortable pants."
I was in the Social media office of the White House a couple of months ago. It's in the Old Executive Building, not the West Wing. The office was decorated like you would expect a social media office to be decorated, the people all acted like you would expect, but they were all wearing suits.
How programmers dress is a fascinating social topic.
Do they do it for the comfort? Maybe a little. The shoes yeah.
Is it a litmus test for the level of freedom management gives that department? Of course it is. A sizable, well-dressed software engineering department is usually a social indicator that the company is strong arming them. That means they probably have lower quality work and are less happy. :(
The reason that brings this all about though? Belief. Many software engineers believe that the way we do business is wrong - that formalities are useless and that you should care about the end product. If you're willing to let business deals fail because the other guy was wearing a polo and not a suit, your company deserves to fall apart. We don't care about giving a good impression - we care if the product gives a good impression. We're just the delivery mechanism.
I wonder whether his open mindedness with regard to styles of dress extends to software developers who would be happier wearing informal attire (especially in the West Wing of the White House of all places).
It doesn't seem like it comes from an attitude too far removed from congressmen being proud of not understanding tech issues because it's all nerd stuff.
Edit: A facebook comment on the article really showcases the sentiment, just more explicitly: "So keep them in the basement, feed them pizza and Redbull and let them wear what they need. Does the gardener wear a tux and bowtie?"