> That may be a reasonable requirement, depending on the panel topic.
Hmm. I really don't see how. That's a bit like saying that because you work in Java, you can't talk about Ruby, or AWS, or Scrum, or skydiving. This really seems like the sort of thing that you "opt in" rather than "opt out" - you're qualified to talk on a panel if you are X, rather than being disqualified if you are Y.
Can you think of any topics where that WOULD be a reasonable requirement? I cannot, but I'm biased.
Also, X and Y in this case are (mostly) mutually exclusive. We just don't have a common catchall term for technical non-ICs to be able to express a positive requirement without also including non-technical managers.
Post-mortems, one-on-ones, dealing with toxic team members, adopting "Continuous X" practices, "Your team just added it's first woman engineer. Now what?", etc.
All the post-mortems I do are as an IC; I (occasionally) lead my own one-on-ones either with other ICs as a fellow IC and/or manager; I've seen "continuous X" practices pushed by both ICs and managers (ICs vastly moreso, actually); and management does not qualify you (and IC does not disqualify you) from being able to teach people how to treat fellow humans like fellow humans.
In short, I completely disagree both by opinion and experience that any of those topics have "not being an IC" as a reasonable requirement.
Hmm. I really don't see how. That's a bit like saying that because you work in Java, you can't talk about Ruby, or AWS, or Scrum, or skydiving. This really seems like the sort of thing that you "opt in" rather than "opt out" - you're qualified to talk on a panel if you are X, rather than being disqualified if you are Y.
Can you think of any topics where that WOULD be a reasonable requirement? I cannot, but I'm biased.