[davesims]

As someone who was directly involved with hiring & managing Bryana let me set one aspect of this conversation to rest: Bryana's performance _across the board_ was top-notch, without qualification.

She commanded, and continues to command, respect from her peers for both her technical contributions on a very challenging tech stack, and product savvy in an extremely complex business domain. I was on her interview and there was no question of moving bars. It didn't even come up, because she was so very well-prepared. We just evaluated the performance and hired the best dev for the position, end of conversation.

On the job she spoke with authority and confidence in standups and earned every single bit of responsibility she ever got. Mention her to anyone who's worked with Bryana and you'll get the "eye roll of respect." She's so talented there was a minor running joke with a couple of us that we should keep a countdown clock of "minutes till I work for Bryana."

I only wish that early in my career I could have been half as well-rounded and with a fraction of the aptitude, product savvy and technical depth Bryana has.

[RIMR]

Have you made any decisions about Bryana's responsibilities that were motivated by her gender, rather than her personal strengths?

Putting your only female dev in the position of representing your company at conferences suggests that she's taken on the role of "token female". If this is coincidental, and she just happens to be the best spoken developer with the least stagefright, then clearly there is no problem. However, if you deliberately chose her because she is female, then you are doing her no long-term favors, and are engaged in sexist business practices yourself.

new_corp_dev put it better than I could: "If the industry sees a glut of women speakers who are there only because they are women, then the industry will have no choice but to acknowledge their token status."

[davesims]

> Have you made any decisions about Bryana's responsibilities that were motivated by her gender, rather than her personal strengths?

Nope. Fortunately for me, while I was in a position to make those decisions about Bryana (I've since changed gigs), her own excellent performance was the only thing I had to think about.

Look, I'll let Bryana's own career speak for itself, which I have no doubt it will, but for myself I'd have confidence putting her in front of any audience on any topic she feels comfortable talking about.

One other thing, if you know anything about how conferences work, CFPs/speaking roles are something managed by the conferences, not companies. Questions of 'token' or otherwise are best posed to the individual organizers of the conference in question.

[JoeAltmaier]

So what? What harm is there in showcasing female workers? There's nothing about being a 'token' that precludes competence.

[RIMR]

There's nothing wrong with showcase female workers, as long as you aren't doing so BECAUSE they are female.

Since you are constantly accusing everyone here of the Straw Man fallacy, let me provide you an example of an actual Straw Man argument:

>So what? What harm is there in showcasing female workers? There's nothing about being a 'token' that precludes competence.

[JoeAltmaier]

Um, we must have different ideas of what that phrase means. "A weak or imaginary opposition, set up to be easily refuted". I'd have had to set up something, for that to be the case. Instead of, just exploring the previous comment's setup.

[new_corp_dev]

Nobody is questioning her ability or qualifications, only your decision to offer her opportunities and incentives based on her gender which her post implies were not also available to equally qualified male members of her team.

If you want to put the conversation to rest, simply clarify that point.

[davesims]

> only your decision to offer her opportunities and incentives based on her gender which her post implies were not also available to equally qualified male members of her team.

Her post only implied her own personal, subjective and utterly understandable anxieties on that point. My response was at pains to put both her questions and anyone else's to rest. She earned everything she got, and the comprehensive respect she received from her peers was without qualification. Never mind gender, she coded way beyond her years of experience. The main thing with managing Bryana was to get out of her way and let her do outstanding work, which she did.

> If you want to put the conversation to rest, simply clarify that point.

Was there something ambiguous to you in my statements here?

* Bryana's performance _across the board_ was top-notch, _without qualification_.

* ...she..._earned_ every single bit of responsibility she ever got.

* We just evaluated the [interview] performance and hired the best dev for the position, _end of conversation_.