Certainly, we can fall foul of a greedy solution by picking two excellent speakers who are known to violently disagree. Instead, we need to optimise the panel/conference globally.
If a tech panel inspired a woman into pursuing a career in tech, that she had previously felt was "too male-dominated", would that be counted towards being a "good" panel?
Even weaker than that, if a panel went some way to dispell rumours that the tech-world was sexist, wouldn't that be "good" too?
You or I may never notice the impact that these choices have, but some people may, and it may have a profound effect on them.
If having a woman in the panel is likely to outweigh not having one, which has to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, then I'd say have one. However, the author of the article considers having females on a panel to be an intrinsic good and a moral imperative.
That said, within the sphere of technology, gender does not matter, in the same way that race does not matter. A human mind is a human mind.
I think actively pointing this out to women or men who bring up gender issues is more likely to be useful than trying to worry about and indirectly correct for other people's irrationality (i.e. dispelling rumors of sexism or worries about male domination).
Regarding male domination: Some workplaces are going to be biased against <X>, although hopefully increasingly few over time, and sometimes, <X> are going to have to change workplaces. <X> could be women, but it could also be all kinds of other things, including traits that I (as a while male) have. For example, I think being a political minority and being introverted, both of which traits I have, can easily cause as much workplace bias/difficulty as being a woman. But it depends on highly on the specific workplace you find yourself in.
Certainly, we can fall foul of a greedy solution by picking two excellent speakers who are known to violently disagree. Instead, we need to optimise the panel/conference globally.
If a tech panel inspired a woman into pursuing a career in tech, that she had previously felt was "too male-dominated", would that be counted towards being a "good" panel?
Even weaker than that, if a panel went some way to dispell rumours that the tech-world was sexist, wouldn't that be "good" too?
You or I may never notice the impact that these choices have, but some people may, and it may have a profound effect on them.