Teams that build software are largely demographically homogeneous. Without diversity, homogeneous perspectives dominate how, why, and for whom software is designed. To understand how teams can successfully build and sustain diversity, we interviewed 11 engineers and 9 managers from some of the most gender and racially diverse teams at Google, a large software company. Qualitatively analyzing the interviews, we found shared approaches to recruiting, hiring, and promoting an inclusive environment, all of which create a positive feedback loop. Our findings produce actionable practices that every member of the team can take to increase diversity by fostering a more inclusive software engineering environment.

Code review is an essential task for modern software engineers, where the author of a code change assigns other engineers the task of providing feedback on the author's code. In this paper, we investigate the task of code review through the lens of equity, the proposition that engineers should share reviewing responsibilities fairly. Through this lens, we quantitatively examine gender inequities in code review load at Google. We found that, on average, women perform about 25% fewer reviews than men, an inequity with multiple systemic antecedents, including authors' tendency to choose men as reviewers, a recommender system's amplification of human biases, and gender differences in how reviewer credentials are assigned and earned. Although substantial work remains to close the review load gap, we show how one small change has begun to do so.

Code review is a powerful technique to ensure high quality software and spread knowledge of best coding practices between engineers. Unfortunately, code reviewers may have biases about authors of the code they are reviewing, which can lead to inequitable experiences and outcomes. In principle, anonymous author code review can reduce the impact of such biases by withholding an author's identity from a reviewer. In this paper, to understand the engineering effects of using author anonymous code review in a practical setting, we applied the technique to 5217 code reviews performed by 300 software engineers at Google. Our results suggest that during anonymous author code review, reviewers can frequently guess authors’ identities; that focus is reduced on reviewer-author power dynamics; and that the practice poses a barrier to offline, high-bandwidth conversations. Based on our findings, we recommend that those who choose to implement anonymous author code review should reveal the time zone of the author by default, have a break-the-glass option for revealing author identity, and reveal author identity directly after the review.