An alternative interpretation is that by opening more positions for women, they're trying to make a societal improvement, by opening doors to people (women, in this case), that meet too many closed doors.

Given their (in relative terms) failure, one could say that this is a complex problem, and addressing one issue is unfortunately not enough.

> even if they're a poor engineer?

This is not something GP wrote. They wrote they had significant issues because, in a sense, they created a problem (hiring methodologies) in order to solve one that didn't previously exist (gender bias).