did everyone miss the big-ass "NOT PEER REVIEWED" disclaimer on every page of that report?
Like, seriously, read the damn paper people https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf
Preprint here: https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf
Contains a figure showing pull request acceptance rate as function of how many pull requests a user has made.
Many graphs start at 60 % >:(
What a lazy comment. I recommend looking at the actual study . It is reported as showing that male programmers are incompetent and misogynist. However, when you look at the data (especially Fig. 5 on page 15) you'll find that this claim is baseless. Male outsiders showed the exact same drop in acceptance rates when their avatar was gendered as women outsiders did. No evidence for gender bias.
Looking at the data for insiders (left part of Fig. 5), you have evidence that male insiders have lower PR acceptance rates when their avatar was gendered but women insiders don't. Applying the authors' logic you would have to conclude that tech is biased against men, which is nonsense and which illustrates that the reasoning used in this study isn't sound.
Edit: Down voting instead of responding is lazy, too.
The research paper is here if anyone is interested: https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf
Full Analysis: https://peerj.com/preprints/1733.pdf
1. Women are more likely to have pull requests accepted than men.
2. Women continue to have high acceptance rates as they gain experience.
3. Women’s pull requests are less likely to serve an immediate project need.
4. Women’s changes are larger.
5. Women’s acceptance rates are higher across programming languages.
6. Women have lower acceptance rates as outsiders when they are identifiable as women.