Part 1: The Room Has Failed
// stop counting diversity. start looking at the room.
I spend most of my working hours auditing systems for a living: interfaces, booking flows, approval processes, the small infrastructural decisions that determine whether a well-intentioned space actually functions the way it claims to. Somewhere in the last few months, I started running the same audit on rooms.
Not the metaphorical kind. The literal ones. Conference rooms, boardrooms, community spaces, panels, cohorts, staff photos. And what I noticed is that the diversity conversation, as practiced today, is asking a question I’m no longer willing to spend energy answering. It asks why diversity matters, again and again, cycle after cycle, as though the case still needs to be made. It audits metrics. It counts seats. It negotiates percentages. And every round of that negotiation quietly concedes the premise that a reflective room is the exception that must be argued for, rather than the baseline that any room claiming to serve people should have started from.
So here is the standard I am manifesting, and it does not require a debate. A room should reflect the society it exists inside and the communities it serves. If it does not, the room has failed. Not “let’s circle back on the metrics.” Not “let’s revisit our diversity goals.” Failed. If women are roughly fifty-one percent of the world, then a room making decisions that touch the world should be roughly fifty-one percent women, and every institution serving a specific country or community should be calibrated the same way, against who that community actually is. Local rooms mirror local populations. Global rooms mirror the global population. The bar isn’t perfect statistical mirroring on every axis; it’s whether the people a room serves are present in it, or at minimum, structurally heard.
Sum the global majority — Africa and its diaspora, Latin America, South and Southeast Asia, Indigenous populations on every continent — and the reflective room worldwide is majority women and majority people of color.
The rooms we currently accept as normal are the statistical anomaly.
They are the thing that needs explaining, and we have spent decades explaining the wrong side of the equation. And I will no longer be participating in that debate.
There’s an energetic argument here too, underneath the structural one. Every time we frame this as women fighting for a seat at the table, as people of color petitioning for access, as metrics to be audited, as a case to be re-made, we reinforce the deficit we’re trying to close. We keep speaking a language in which the reflective room is the demand and the failed room is the default. As a student of patterns and energy, I’m done putting that language into the world. The failed room is the deviation. The standard doesn’t need defending. The rooms need redesigning.
Nowhere does this failure compound harder than in technology, because technology is where the fewest rooms build for the most people. Access to the building itself is already gatekept: a handful of companies build the tools that essentially all of society runs on. Go one layer down and the concentration gets sharper, and the knowledge to manufacture advanced chips lives almost entirely in one region of the world. I’m not here to litigate trade policy or begrudge anyone their industry; that’s not the point. The point is a design question: how could a room in one context possibly know, unaided, what an impoverished Latin American mother of three in America needs from the technology in her hand? At the hardware layer, maybe the cost of that distance is modest. But the distance doesn’t stay at the hardware layer. It compounds upward through software, applications, algorithms, and now the context and assumptions built into AI tools: a stack of failed rooms, each inheriting the blind spots of the one below it, shipped into everyone’s pocket and forced upon communities without the proper research.
In product management, my discipline for twenty years, building without insight from your user base is a cardinal sin. It’s the first thing you learn and the first question asked when something fails. Did you talk to your customers? And yet we have built entire societies where that is simply how things are done — where the rooms that design everything consult almost no one they design for, and the results ship globally anyway. The diversity debate treats this as a values conversation. I would argue, it’s a quality conversation.
Unrepresentative rooms ship weaker products.
Every properly-trained product manager knows this. Somewhere along the way, we lost the map for how to build excellent products as a society, and we just stopped applying the knowledge to society itself.
I’m realizing, honestly, that this is the same essay I’ve been writing since before I knew I was writing essays. The first piece I ever published asked one question: what if we measured customer happiness instead of customer retention? Different room, same throughline. The barometers we install by default are design choices, and most of them measure what’s easy to count instead of what’s true. Room composition is the metric question again, asked about people instead of customers.
I didn’t arrive at any of this in the abstract. I arrived at it by watching well-intentioned infrastructure fail the people it claims to welcome, in real time, this quarter, without anyone involved doing anything I’d call malicious.
A studio owner I’ve worked alongside runs a genuinely intentional business. She thinks carefully about every part of her client experience. Her booking system doesn’t reflect that intention at all. Willing customers hit a wall trying to pay her: failed attempts, a phone-call workaround, an account forced on people who just wanted to book a session. The intention lives in her. The infrastructure was built from someone else’s defaults, and it quietly filters out anyone without the patience to fight through it.
A community space built entirely around presence and human connection promises responses within 24 hours on its website. My genuine inquiry took three days, then routed to a form requiring an account signup, referencing an approval process with no stated criteria and no visibility into how decisions get made. No villain anywhere in that loop. The person who replied was doing her job well inside a system that had never been asked to justify itself. The system is the case study. The person is not.
And one more, closer to the emotional core of what a room can fail to hold: I learned recently that a grief workshop at a similar space had to be fought for internally before it was allowed to run, treated as a harder sell than it should have been, in a room whose entire premise is holding people through difficult things. If grief needs an internal advocate to get on the calendar, the room has already told you which kinds of need it was built to expect, and which it wasn’t.
The pattern extends past who gets let in, to who gets heard. I’ve been running an informal experiment on what moves people to engage: a link with a value proposition, versus a real, specific question asked person to person. The link converts at a trickle. The genuine question works almost every time, most recently twice in one night in a setting as unplanned as a neighborhood pub. Attention to the actual person in front of you outperforms broadcast every time it’s tried, and yet nearly all of our rooms are built for broadcast. And technology is built in hubs that do not reflect the communities they serve.
Diagnosis without counter-design is just complaining with better vocabulary, so here is what I’ve built. Cielo Studio, the company I founded after twenty years in enterprise technology, exists for the person standing at the threshold between systems built for someone else and a life they’re trying to design on their own terms. The Catalyst Game, a cohort container I run inside it, is a deliberately composed room, with composition treated as an active design variable rather than an afterthought. And this summer, working with a metaphysical community whose native language is intuitive rather than technical, I built a translation table so the room’s own vocabulary could hold ideas usually locked inside a register that would alienate it: marketing becomes seduction, quality assurance becomes devotion. Same discipline, translated, so the room doesn’t have to abandon its own fluency to access it. That’s redesigned access in practice — not a diversity statement, a translation layer, built by hand because the default one didn’t exist.
I’ll place myself in the pattern honestly, as one data point, not the center. I left a stable two-decade career to build at the intersection of technology, wellness, and culture, with no institutional funding and no cohort of peers who look like me in the rooms where capital gets allocated. The same structural pattern, one layer downstream, in the rooms where the next generation of rooms gets built.
A woman I’ve worked with, who avoided nearly every piece of technology in her life until a few weeks ago, described herself to me recently as a strobe light in the sky, looking for like-minded people. She meant it literally: visible and searching at the same time, hoping someone scanning the horizon happens to be looking her way when the light passes over. That is what a failed room does to the people it excludes.
It doesn’t just leave them out. It leaves them signaling into a sky that was never designed to look back.
And to be clear, I mean your room. Not the industry’s rooms in the abstract. Not the one you sat in last year, or the hypothetical one that hasn’t been built yet. The room you are building right now: the team, the cohort, the board, the platform, the community. Stand in the doorway and look at it. If it does not reflect the community and the society around it, it has failed. Not eventually. Now. And because the room is yours, so is the redesign.
What I want to bring back to my community, and to technology and wellness spaces, is the discipline of a systems designer applied to the question of who stands in the rooms that shape wellness, technology, and access for everyone else. Not a diversity audit — a structural one. I already build this way, in small rooms, with limited resources, because the counter-design was the only honest response once the pattern became visible. I’d like the chance to build in rooms that are larger.
// the room has failed. look at yours. i started on mine. let’s build new spaces together.
Between Code & Conscience is written by Crystal A. Chubbs — founder, technologist, and The People’s CTO. I write about building technology that doesn’t extract from the people it serves.
More: The People’s CTO · Circuit + Soil
If this work is resonating, the best way to support it is to share it with one person building something small.