3 ms·

> I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. How do you come to the ide

by wolfgke 10y ago

> I disagree. Software is meant to be meritocratic - all that should matter is the quality of your commits, if you're a contributor. How do you come to the idea that software is meant to be meritocratic? Many people start an OSS software project so that the code implements the founder's vision. So for example I committed some (objectively; in this case "objectively" can objectively be justified [pun intended]) high-quality patches to some OSS project (which project is of no concern here). They were refused because they diverted from the vision that the founder and maintainer of this OSS project has for it.

krapp 10y ago
If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. But if it's about politics or social issues taking precedence over the code, then I would be opposed to it. There are plenty of angry, uncivil, misogynistic and racist 'thought leaders' in tech who are respected not for their political views (although sometimes, yes) but for the quality and popularity of their projects, so I think the premise of software being meritocratic is fairly well established.
- wolfgke 10y ago
  > If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. At least in this case "meritocracy" does not mean "the opinion (about code structure etc.) that is (necessarily) shared by the majority of the contributors".
  - krapp 10y ago
    Well, yeah, many if not all open source projects are dictatorships by necessity - not everyone's opinion can matter when only one or a few people are actually able to accept pull requests. Even the ones that accept the will of the majority are doing so by an arbitrary fiat. But if the majority of contributors disagree with the owner about fundamental design issues, that's what forks are for.

by wolfgke 10y ago

krapp 10y ago

If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. But if it's about politics or social issues taking precedence over the code, then I would be opposed to it. There are plenty of angry, uncivil, misogynistic and racist 'thought leaders' in tech who are respected not for their political views (although sometimes, yes) but for the quality and popularity of their projects, so I think the premise of software being meritocratic is fairly well established.

wolfgke 10y ago
> If that "vision" relates only to the design or structure of the software, then I believe that meritocracy means conforming to the project owner's standards. At least in this case "meritocracy" does not mean "the opinion (about code structure etc.) that is (necessarily) shared by the majority of the contributors".
- krapp 10y ago
  Well, yeah, many if not all open source projects are dictatorships by necessity - not everyone's opinion can matter when only one or a few people are actually able to accept pull requests. Even the ones that accept the will of the majority are doing so by an arbitrary fiat. But if the majority of contributors disagree with the owner about fundamental design issues, that's what forks are for.