[workweek] tc-worker workweek recap

Sprint recap

We spent this week sprinting on the tc-worker, engines and plugins. We merged 19 pull requests and had many productive discussions!

tc-worker core

We implemented the task loop! This basic loop should start when the worker is invoked. It spins up a task claimer and manager responsible for claiming as many tasks up to it’s available capacity and running them to completion. You can find details in in this commit. We’re still working on some high level documentation.

We did some cleanups to make it easier to download and get started with builds. We fixed up packages related to generating go types from json schemas, and the types now conform to the linting rules

We also implemented the webhookserver. The package provides implementations of the WebHookServer interface which allows attachment and detachment of web-hooks to an internet exposed server. This will support both the livelog and interactive features. Work is detailed in PR 37.

engine: hello, world

Greg created a proof of concept and pushed a successful task to emit a hello, world artifact. Greg will be writing up something to describe this process next week.

plugin: environment variables

Wander landed this plugin this week to support environment variable setting. The work is described in PR 39.

plugin: artifact uploads

This plugin will support artifact uploads for all engines to S3 and is based on generic-worker code. This work is started in PR 55.

TaskCluster design principles

We discussed as a team the ideas behind the design of TaskCluster. The umbrella principle we try to stick to is: Getting Things Built. We felt it was important to say that first because it helps us remember that we’re here to provide features to users, not just design systems. The four key design principles were distilled to:

  • Self-service
  • Robustness
  • Enable rapid change
  • Community friendliness

One surprising connection (to me) we made was that our privacy and security features are driven by community friendliness.

We plan to add our ideas about this to a TaskCluster “about” page.

TaskCluster code review

We discussed our process for code review, and how we’d like to do them in the future. We covered issues around when to do architecture reviews and how to get “pre-reviews” for ideas done with colleagues who will be doing our reviews. We made an outline of ideas and will be giving them a permanent home on our docs site.

Q2 Planning

We made a first pass at our 2016q2 goals. The main theme is to add OS X engine support to taskcluster-worker, continue work on refactoring intree config and build out our monitoring system beyond InfluxDB. Further refinements to our plan will come in a couple weeks, as we close out Q1 and get a better understanding of work related to the Buildbot to TaskCluster migration.

Tier-1 status for Linux 64 Debug build jobs on March 14, 2016

I sent this to dev-planning, dev-platform, sheriffs and tools-taskcluster today. I added a little more context for a non-Mozilla audience.

The time has come! We are planning to switch to Tier-1 on Treeherder for TaskCluster Linux 64 Debug build jobs on March 14. At the same time, we will hide the Buildbot build jobs, but continue running them. This means that these jobs will become what Sheriffs use to determine the health of patches and our trees.

On March 21, we plan to switch the Linux 64 Debug tests to Tier-1 and hide the related Buildbot test jobs.

After about 30 days, we plan to disable and remove all Buildbot jobs related to Linux Debug.

Background:

We’ve been running Linux 64 Debug builds and tests using TaskCluster side-by-side with Buildbot jobs since February 18th. Some of the project work that was done to green up the tests is documented here.

The new tests are running in Docker-ized environments, and the Docker images we use are defined in-tree and publicly accessible.

This work was the culmination of many months of effort, with Joel Maher, Dustin Mitchell and Armen Zambrano primarily focused on test migration this quarter. Thank you to everyone who responded to NEEDINFOs, emails and pings on IRC to help with untangling busted test runs.

On performance, we’re taking a 14% hit across all the new test jobs vs. the old jobs in Buildbot. We ran two large-scale tests to help determine where slowness might still be lurking, and were able to find and fix many issues. There are a handful of jobs remaining that seem significantly slower, while others are significantly faster. We decided that it was more important to deprecate the old jobs and start exclusively maintaining the new jobs now, rather than wait to resolve the remaining performance issues. Over time we hope to address issues with the owners of the affected test suites.

[portland] taskcluster-worker Hello, World

The TaskCluster Platform team is in Portland this week, hacking on the taskcluster-worker.

Today, we all sync’d up on the current state of our worker, and what we’re going to hack on this week. We started with the current docs.

The reason why we’re investing so much time in the worker is two fold:

  • The worker code previously lived in two code bases – docker-worker and generic-worker. We need to unify these code bases so that multiple engineers can work on it, and to help us maintain feature parity.
  • We need to get a worker that supports Windows into production. For now, we’re using the generic-worker, but we’d like to switch over to taskcluster-worker in late Q2 or early Q3. This timeline lines up with when we expect the Windows migration from Buildbot to happen.

One of the things I asked this team to do was come up with some demos of the new worker. The first demo today was to simply output a log and upload it from Greg Arndt.

The rest of the team is getting their Go environments set up to run tests and get hacking on crucial plugins, like our environment variable handling and additional artifact uploading logic we need for our production workers.

We’re also taking the opportunity to sync up with our Windows environment guru. Our goal for Buildbot to TaskCluster migration this quarter is focused on Linux builds and tests. Next quarter, we’ll be finishing Linux and, I hope, landing Windows builds in TaskCluster. To do that, we have a lot of details to sort out with how we’ll build Windows AMIs and deploy them. It’s a very different model because we don’t have the same options with Docker as we have on Linux.

[berlin] TaskCluster Platform: A Year of Development

Back in September, the TaskCluster Platform team held a workweek in Berlin to discuss upcoming feature development, focus on platform stability and monitoring and plan for the coming quarter’s work related to Release Engineering and supporting Firefox Release. These posts are documenting the many discussions we had there.

Jonas kicked off our workweek with a brief look back on the previous year of development.

Prototype to Production

In the last year, TaskCluster went from an idea with a few tasks running to running all of FirefoxOS aka B2G continuous integration, which is about 40 tasks per minute in the current environment.

Architecture-wise, not a lot of major changes were made. We went from CloudAMQP to Pulse (in-house RabbitMQ). And shortly, Pulse itself will be moving it’s backend to CloudAMQP! We introduced task statuses, and then simplified them.

On the implementation side, however, a lot changed. We added many features and addressed a ton of docker worker bugs. We killed Postgres and added Azure Table Storage. We rewrote the provisioner almost entirely, and moved to ES6. We learned a lot about babel-node.

We introduced the first alternative to the Docker worker, the Generic worker. We for the first time had Release Engineering create a worker, the Buildbot Bridge.

We have several new users of TaskCluster! Brian Anderson from Rust created a system for testing all Cargo packages for breakage against release versions. We’ve had a number of external contributors create builds for FirefoxOS devices. We’ve had a few Github-based projects jump on taskcluster-github.

Features that go beyond BuildBot

One of the goals of creating TaskCluster was to not just get feature parity, but go beyond and support exciting, transformative features to make developer use of the CI system easier and fun.

Some of the features include:

Features coming in the near future to support Release

Release is a special use case that we need to support in order to take on Firefox production worload. The focus of development work in Q4 and beyond includes:

  • Secrets handling to support Release and ops workflows. In Q4, we should see secrets.taskcluster.net go into production and UI for roles-based management.
  • Scheduling support for coalescing, SETA and cache locality. In Q4, we’re focusing on an external data solution to support coalescing and SETA.
  • Private data hosting. In Q4, we’ll be using a roles-based solution to support these.

TaskCluster Platform: 2015Q3 Retrospective

Welcome to TaskCluster Platform’s 2015Q3 Retrospective! I’ve been managing this team this quarter and thought it would be nice to look back on what we’ve done. This report covers what we did for our quarterly goals. I’ve linked to “Publications” at the bottom of this page, and we have a TaskCluster Mozilla Wiki page that’s worth checking out.

High level accomplishments

  • Dramatically improved stability of TaskCluster Platform for Sheriffs by fixing TreeHerder ingestion logic and regexes, adding better logging and fixing bugs in our taskcluster-vcs and mozilla-taskcluster components
  • Created and Deployed CI builds on three major platforms:
    • Added Linux64 (CentOS), Mac OS X cross-compiled builds as Tier2 CI builds
    • Completed and documented a prototype Windows 2012 builds in AWS and task configuration
  • Deployed auth.taskcluster.net, enabling better security, better support for self-service authorization and easier contributions from outside our team
  • Added region biasing based on cost and availability of spot instances to our AWS provisioner
  • Managed the workload of two interns, and significantly mentored a third
  • Onboarded Selena as a new manager
  • Held a workweek to focus attention on bringing our environment into production support of Release Engineering

Goals, Bugs and Collaborators

We laid out our Q3 goals in this etherpad. Our chosen themes this quarter were:

  • Improve operational excellence — focus on sheriff concerns, data collection,
  • Facilitate self-serve consumption — refactoring auth and supporting roles for scopes, and
  • Exploit opportunities to differentiate from other platforms — support for interactive sessions, docker images as artifacts, github integration and more blogging/docs.

We had 139 Resolved FIXED bugs in TaskCluster product.

Link to graph of resolved bugs

We also resolved 7 bugs in FirefoxOS, TreeHerder and RelEng products/components.

We received significant contributions from other teams: Morgan (mrrrgn) designed, created and deployed taskcluster-github; Ted deployed Mac OS X cross compiled builds; Dustin reworked the Linux TC builds to use CentOS, and resolved 11 bugs related to TaskCluster and Linux builds.

An additional 9 people contributed code to core TaskCluster, intree build scripts and and task definitions: aus, rwood, rail, mshal, gerard-majax, mihneadb@gmail.com, htsai, cmanchester, and echen.

The Big Picture: TaskCluster integration into Platform Operations

Moving from B2G to Platform was a big shift. The team had already made a goal of enabling Firefox Release builds, but it wasn’t entirely clear how to accomplish that. We spent a lot of this quarter learning things from RelEng and prioritizing. The whole team spent the majority of our time supporting others use of TaskCluster through training and support, developing task configurations and resolving infrastructure problems. At the same time, we shipped docker-worker features, provisioner biasing and a new authorization system. One tricky infra issue that John and Jonas worked on early in the quarter was a strange AWS Provisioner failure that came down to an obscure missing dependency. We had a few git-related tree closures that Greg worked closely on and ultimately committed fixes to taskcluster-vcs to help resolve. Everyone spent a lot of time responding to bugs filed by the sheriffs and requests for help on IRC.

It’s hard to overstate how important the Sheriff relationship and TreeHerder work was. A couple teams had the impression that TaskCluster itself was unstable. Fixing this was a joint effort across TreeHerder, Sheriffs and TaskCluster teams.

When we finished, useful errors were finally being reported by tasks and starring became much more specific and actionable. We may have received a partial compliment on this from philor. The extent of artifact upload retries, for example, was made much clearer and we’ve prioritized fixing this in early Q4.

Both Greg and Jonas spent many weeks meeting with Ed and Cam, designing systems, fixing issues in TaskCluster components and contributing code back to TreeHerder. These meetings also led to Jonas and Cam collaborating more on API and data design, and this work is ongoing.

We had our own “intern” who was hired on as a contractor for the summer, Edgar Chen. He did some work with the docker-worker, implementing Interactive Sessions, and did analysis on our provisioner/worker efficiency. We made him give a short, sweet presentation on the interactive sessions. Edgar is now at CMU for his sophomore year and has referred at least one friend back to Mozilla to apply for an internship next summer.

Pete completed a Windows 2012 prototype build of Firefox that’s available from Try, with documentation and a completely automated process for creating AMIs. He hasn’t created a narrated video with dueling, British-English accented robot voices for this build yet.

We also invested a great deal of time in the RelEng interns. Jonas and Greg worked with Anhad on getting him productive with TaskCluster. When Anthony arrived, we also onboarded him. Jonas worked closely to get him working on a new project, hooks.taskcluster.net. To take these two bits of work from RelEng on, I pushed TaskCluster’s roadmap for generic-worker features back a quarter and Jonas pushed his stretch goal of getting the big graph scheduler into production to Q4.

We worked a great deal with other teams this quarter on taskcluster-github, supporting new Firefox and B2G builds, RRAs for the workers and generally telling Mozilla about TaskCluster.

Finally, we spent a significant amount of time interviewing, and then creating a more formal interview process that includes a coding challenge and structured-interview type questions. This is still in flux, but the first two portions are being used and refined currently. Jonas, Greg and Pete spent many hours interviewing candidates.

Berlin Work Week

TaskCluster Platform Team in Berlin

Toward the end of the quarter, we held a workweek in Berlin to focus our next round of work on critical RelEng and Release-specific features as well as production monitoring planning. Dustin surprised us with delightful laser cut acrylic versions of the TaskCluster logo for the team! All team members reported that they benefited from being in one room to discuss key designs, get immediate code review, and demonstrate work in progress.

We came out of this with 20+ detailed documents from our conversations, greater alignment on the priorities for Platform Operations and a plan for trainings and tutorials to give at Orlando. Dustin followed this up with a series of ‘TC Topics’ Vidyo sessions targeted mostly at RelEng.

Our Q4 roadmap is focused on key RelEng features to support Release.

Publications

Our team published a few blog posts and videos this quarter:

TaskCluster migration: about the Buildbot Bridge

Back on May 7, Ben Hearsum gave a short talk about an important piece of technology supporting our transition to TaskCluster, the Buildbot Bridge. A recording is available.

I took some detailed notes to spread the word about how this work is enabling a great deal of important Q3 work like the Release Promotion project. Basically, the bridge allows us to separate out work that Buildbot currently runs in a somewhat monolithic way into TaskGraphs and Tasks that can be scheduled separately and independently. This decoupling is a powerful enabler for future work.

Of course, you might argue that we could perform this decoupling in Buildbot.

However, moving to TaskCluster means adopting a modern, distributed queue-based approach to managing incoming jobs. We will be freed of the performance tradeoffs and careful attention required when using relational databases for queue management (Buildbot uses MySQL for it’s queues, TaskCluster uses RabbitMQ and Azure). We also will be moving “decision tasks” in-tree, meaning that they will be closer to developer environments and likely easier to manage keeping developer and build system environments in sync.

Here are my notes:

Why have the bridge?

  • Allows a graceful transition
  • We’re in an annoying state where we can’t have dependencies between buildbot builds and taskcluster tasks. For example: we can’t move firefox linux builds into taskcluster without moving everything downstream of those also into taskcluster
  • It’s not practical and sometimes just not possible to move everything at the same time. This let’s us reimplement buildbot schedulers as task graphs. Buildbot builds are tasks on the task graphs enabling us to change each task to be implemented by a Docker worker, a generic worker or anything we want or need at that point.
  • One of the driving forces is the build promotion project – the funsize and anti-virus scanning and binary moving – this is going to be implemented in taskcluster tasks but the rest will be in Buildbot. We need to be able to bounce between the two.

What is the Buildbot Bridge (BBB)

BBB acts as a TC worker and provisioner and delegates all those things to BuildBot. As far as TC is concerned, BBB is doing all this work, not Buildbot itself. TC knows nothing about Buildbot.

There are three services:

  • TC Listener: responds to things happening in TC
  • BuildBot Listener: responds to BB events
  • Reflector: takes care of things that can’t be done in response to events — it reclaims tasks periodically, for example. TC expects Tasks to reclaim tasks. If a Task stops reclaiming, TC considers that Task dead.

BBB has a small database that associates build requests with TC taskids and runids.

BBB is designed to be multihomed. It is currently deployed but not running on three Buildbot masters. We can lose an AWS region and the bridge will still function. It consumes from Pulse.

The system is dependent on Pulse, SchedulerDB and Self-serve (in addition to a Buildbot master and Taskcluster).

Taskcluster Listener

Reacts to events coming from TC Pulse exchanges.

Creates build requests in response to tasks becoming “pending”. When someone pushes to mozilla-central, BBB inserts BuildRequests into BB SchedulerDB. Pending jobs appear in BB. BBB cancels BuildRequests as well — can happen from timeouts, someone explicitly cancelling in TC.

Buildbot Listener

Responds to events coming from the BB Pulse exchanges.

Claims a Task when builds start. Attaches BuildBot Properties to Tasks as artifacts. Has a buildslave name, information/metadata. It resolves those Tasks.

Buildbot and TC don’t have a 1:1 mapping of BB statuses and TC resolution. Also needs to coordinate with Treeherder color. A short discussion happened about implementing these colors in an artifact rather than inferring them from return codes or statuses inherent to BB or TC.

Reflector

  • Runs on a timer – every 60 seconds
  • Reclaims tasks: need to do this every 30-60 minutes
  • Cancels Tasks when a BuildRequest is cancelled on the BB side (have to troll through BB DB to detect this state if it is cancelled on the buildbot side)

Scenarios

  • A successful build!

Task is created. Task in TC is pending, nothnig in BB. TCListener picks up the event and creates a BuildRequest (pending).

BB creates a Build. BBListener receives buildstarted event, claims the Task.

Reflector reclaims the Task while the Build is running.

Build completes successfully. BBListener receives log uploaded event (build finished), reports success in TaskCluster.

  • Build fails initially, succeeds upon retry

(500 from hg – common reason to retry)

Same through Reflector.

BB fails, marked as RETRY BBListener receives log uploaded event, reports exception to Taskcluster and calls rerun Task.

BB has already started a new Build TCListener receives task-pending event, updates runid, does not create a new BuildRequest.

Build completes successfully Buildbot Listener receives log uploaded event, reports success to TaskCluster.

  • Task exceeds deadline before Build starts

Task created TCListener receives task-pending event, creates BuildRequest Nothing happens. Task goes past deadline, TaskCluster cancels it. TCListener receives task-exception event, cancels BuildRequest through Self-serve

QUESTIONS:

  • TC deadline, what is it? Queue: a task past a deadline is marked as timeout/deadline exceeded

On TH, if someone requests a rebuild twice what happens? * There is no retry/rerun, we duplicate the subgraph — where ever we retrigger, you get everything below it. You’d end up with duplicates Retries and rebuilds are separate. Rebuilds are triggered by humans, retries are internal to BB. TC doesn’t have a concept of retries.

  • How do we avoid duplicate reporting? TC will be considered source of truth in the future. Unsure about interim. Maybe TH can ignore duplicates since the builder names will be the same.

  • Replacing the scheduler what does that mean exactly?

    • Mostly moving decision tasks in-tree — practical impact: YAML files get moved into the tree
    • Remove all scheduling from BuildBot and Hg polling

Roll-out plan

  • Connected to the Alder branch currently
  • Replacing some of the Alder schedulers with TaskGraphs
  • All the BB Alder schedulers are disabled, and was able to get a push to generate a TaskGraph!

Next steps might be release scheduling tasks, rather than merging into central. Someone else might be able to work on other CI tasks in parallel.

TaskCluster migration: a “hello, world” for worker task creator

On June 1, 2015, Morgan and Dustin presented an introduction to configuring and testing TaskCluster worker tasks. The session was recorded. Their notes are also available in an etherpad.

The key tutorial information centered on how to set up jobs, test/run them locally and selecting appropriate worker types for jobs.

This past quarter Morgan has been working on Linux Docker images and TaskCluster workers for Firefox builds. Using that work as an example, Morgan showed how to set up new jobs with Docker images. She also touched on a couple issues that remain, like sharing sensitive or encrypted information on publicly available infrastructure.

A couple really nice things:

  • You can run the whole configuration locally by copy and pasting a shell script that’s output by the TaskCluster tools
  • There are a number of predefined workers you can use, so that you’re not creating everything from scratch

Dustin gave an overview of task graphs using a specific example. Looking through the docs, I think the best source of documentation other than this video is probably the API documentation. The docs could use a little more narrative for context, as Dustin’s short talk about it demonstrated.

The talk closed with an invitation to help write new tasks, with pointers to the Android work Dustin’s been doing.

Migrating to Taskcluster: work underway!

Mozilla’s build and test infrastructure has relied on Buildbot as the backbone of our systems for many years. Asking around, I heard that we started using Buildbot around 2008. The time has come for a change!

Many of the people working on migrating from Buildbot to Taskcluster gathered all together for the first time to talk about migration this morning. (A recording of the meeting is available)

The goal of this work is to shut down Buildbot and identify a timeline. Our first goal post is to eliminate the Buildbot Scheduler by moving build production entirely into TaskCluster, and scheduling tests in TaskCluster.

Today, most FirefoxOS builds and tests are in Taskcluster. Nearly everything else for Firefox is driven by Buildbot.

Our current tracker bug is ‘Buildbot -> TaskCluster transition‘. At a high level, the big projects underway are:

We have quite a few things to figure out in the Windows and Mac OS X realm where we’re interacting with hardware, and some work is left to be done to support Windows in AWS. We’re planning to get more clarity on the work that needs to be done there next week.

The bugs identified seem tantalizingly close to describing most of the issues that remain in porting our builds. The plan is to have a timeline documented for builds to be fully migrated over by Whistler! We are also working on migrating tests, but for now believe the Buildbot Bridge will help us get tests out of the Buildbot scheduler, even if we continue to need Buildbot masters for a while. An interesting idea about using runner to manage hardware instead of the masters was raised during the meeting that we’ll be exploring further.

If you’re interested in learning more about TaskCluster and how to use it, Chris Cooper is running a training on Monday June 1 at 1:30pm PT.

Ping me on IRC, Twitter or email if you have questions!

pushlog from last night, a brief look at Try

One of the mysterious and amazing parts of Mozilla’s Release Engineering infrastructure is the Try server, or just “Try”. This is how Firefox and FirefoxOS developers can push changes to Mozilla’s large build and test system, made up of about 3000 servers at any time. There are a couple amazing things about this — one is that anyone can request access to push to try, not just core developers or Mozilla employees. It is a publicly-available system and tool. Second is that a remarkable amount of control is offered over which builds to produce and which tests are run. Each Try run could consume 300+ hours of machine time if every posible build and test option is selected.

This blog post is a brain dump from a few days of noodling and a quick review of of the pushlog for Try, which shows exactly the options developers are choosing for their Try runs.

To use Try, you need to include a string of configuration that looks something like this in your topmost hg commit:

try: -b do -p emulator,emulator-jb,emulator-kk,linux32_gecko,linux64_gecko,macosx64_gecko,win32_gecko -u all -t none

That’s a recommended string for B2G developers from the Sheriff best practices wiki page. If you’re interested in how this works, the code for the try syntax parser itself is here.

You can include a Try configuration string in an empty commit, or as the last part of an existing commit message. What most developers tell me they do is have a an empty commit with the Try string in it, and they remove the extra commit before merging a patch. From all the feedback I’ve read and heard, I think that’s probably what we should document on the wiki page for Try, and maybe have a secondary page with “variants” for those that want to use more advanced tooling. KISS rule seems to apply here.

If you’re a regular user of Try, you might have heard of the high scores tracker. What you might not know is that there is a JSON file behind this page and it contains quite a bit of history that’s used to generate that page. You can find it if you just replace ‘.html’ with ‘.json’.

Something about the 8-bit ambiance of this page that made me think of “texts from last night”. But in reality, Try is most busy during typical Pacific Time working hours.

The high scores page also made me curious about the actual Try strings that people were using. I pulled them all out and had a look at what config options were most common.

Of the 1262 pushes documented today in that file:

  • 760 used ‘-b do’ meaning both Debug and Opt builds are made. I wonder whether this should just be the default, or we should have some clear recomendations about what developers should do here.
  • 366 used ‘-p all’ meaning build on 28 platforms, and produce 28 binaries. Some people might intend this, but I wonder if some other default might be more helpful.
  • 456 used ‘-u all’ meaning that all the unit tests were run.
  • 1024 used ‘-t none’ reflecting the waning use of Talos tests.

I’m still thinking about how to use this information. I have a few ideas:

  • Change the defaults for a minimal try run
  • Make some commonly-used aliases for things like “build on B2G platforms” or “tests that catch a lot of problems”
  • Create a dashboard that shows TopN try syntax strings
  • update the parser to include more of the options documented on various wiki pages as environment variables

If you’re a regular user of Try, what would you like to see changed? Ping me in #releng, email or tweet your thoughts!

And some background on me: I’ve been working with the Release Engineering team since April 1, 2015, and most of that time so far was spent on #buildduty, a topic I’m planning to write a few blog posts about. I’m also having a look at planning for the Task Cluster migration (away from BuildBot), monitoring and developer environments for releng tooling. I’m also working on a zine to share at Whistler of what is going on when you push to Try. Finally, I stood up a bot for reporting alerts through AWS SNS and to be able to file #buildduty related bugzilla bugs.

My goal right now is to find ways of communicating about and sharing the important work that Release Engineering is doing. Some of that is creating tracker bugs and having meetings to spread knowlege. Some of that is documenting our infrastructure and drawing pictures of how our systems interact. A lot of it is listening and learning from the engineers who build and ship Firefox to the world.

My recent op-ed published about Portland and startups

I was featured in the Portland Business Journal last Friday! I wrote an essay on startups and the experiences of women in the Portland tech community that have caused me to not refer women into startups for jobs unless the startups are run by fellow PyLadies.

Some excerpts:

It takes more than one CEO’s alleged behavior to cause 56 percent of women to leave technology related fields by mid-career, according to a Harvard Business Review study. That’s twice the rate that men leave the tech industry.

After all, 63 percent of women in STEM industries (science, technology engineering and math) have experienced sexual harassment, according to a 2008 study.

I can’t recommend that women work for startups in Portland.

Startup funders should keep holding executives accountable. Company cultures grow from the seeds planted by their leaders.

These companies need [qualified HR, skilled with workforce diversity issues], and our tech leaders should demand it.

Read the whole thing at the Portland Business Journal’s site!