4 ms·

A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-add to a core mission of the effort, e.g. a block of code for a requested feature, do

A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-add to a core mission of the effort, e.g. a block of code for a requested feature, documentation to accompany a feature, an insightful on-topic post, or a stimulating exchange. It's an artifact whose value is derived from its content, and not from its provenance.

ch4s3 9y ago
OK, I'll bite. In principle, this makes sense, but I think if we poke at it a little you may agree that there are some holes. >A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-add to a core mission Let's discuss the core mission. How is this mission decided? Is there a process that includes multiple stakeholders? Who picks these stakeholders? I would presume that most open source projects are started by 1 person, or a few people who work together, but recognize that other arrangements exist. At some point either they must set these goals or expand the core group that makes such decisions. So to start with, the first person(s) setting the mission are as arbitrary as having been there when it started. Are they the best at setting goals once a project is in full swing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I think you can agree that at the outset, merit is defined by those who start a project or are arbitrarily close to it's start. > It's an artifact whose value is derived from its content, and not from its provenance. How does a project determine the "value" of a piece of content. What is the process for derivation? Is it simply the fulfillment of a feature request with accompanying tests and docs? I would suggest that for any non-trivial code, it will be difficult to determine if a pull request will do exactly what it is purported to do with no negative externalities. What is you have competing contributions for the same feature request? How do you determine which one to choose? Let's say for example that concurrently an issue is addressed by a core contributor and a first time contributor and both arrive at equivalently good solutions. Which implementation should you choose to maintain "meritocracy"? How do you justify that decision? You may be interested to look to the origin of the word meritocracy[1]. It was intended as satire. [1]The Rise of the Meritocracy https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ
- icebraining 9y ago
  I think you're talking a bit past temp-dude-87844's point. Yes, a system based entirely on the contents of the contributions will end up modeled by the biases of those who take the decisions. But aren't those the same forces that would apply to a "work-focused" company environment like the article proposes?
s73ver 9y ago
The thing with meritocracy is that, at the end of the day, a person is making those value judgements. A person with their own set of biases and prejudices. And especially in code, there is very little in the way of "This code is objectively better than that code."
- forgottenpass 9y ago
  I don't think the point is about avoiding value judgements, just setting scope of them. And yes, any judgement can quickly turn into yak shaving. I don't know that this is about mathematical precision, it always reads more like saying "put down the goddamn shears!"
  - icebraining 9y ago
    I think you mean bike-shedding.

ch4s3 9y ago

OK, I'll bite. In principle, this makes sense, but I think if we poke at it a little you may agree that there are some holes. >A contribution defined by its payload's self-contained substance and value-add to a core mission Let's discuss the core mission. How is this mission decided? Is there a process that includes multiple stakeholders? Who picks these stakeholders? I would presume that most open source projects are started by 1 person, or a few people who work together, but recognize that other arrangements exist. At some point either they must set these goals or expand the core group that makes such decisions. So to start with, the first person(s) setting the mission are as arbitrary as having been there when it started. Are they the best at setting goals once a project is in full swing? Perhaps, perhaps not. But, I think you can agree that at the outset, merit is defined by those who start a project or are arbitrarily close to it's start. > It's an artifact whose value is derived from its content, and not from its provenance. How does a project determine the "value" of a piece of content. What is the process for derivation? Is it simply the fulfillment of a feature request with accompanying tests and docs? I would suggest that for any non-trivial code, it will be difficult to determine if a pull request will do exactly what it is purported to do with no negative externalities. What is you have competing contributions for the same feature request? How do you determine which one to choose? Let's say for example that concurrently an issue is addressed by a core contributor and a first time contributor and both arrive at equivalently good solutions. Which implementation should you choose to maintain "meritocracy"? How do you justify that decision? You may be interested to look to the origin of the word meritocracy[1]. It was intended as satire. [1]The Rise of the Meritocracy https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ https://books.google.com/books?id=QelNAQAAQBAJ

icebraining 9y ago
I think you're talking a bit past temp-dude-87844's point. Yes, a system based entirely on the contents of the contributions will end up modeled by the biases of those who take the decisions. But aren't those the same forces that would apply to a "work-focused" company environment like the article proposes?

s73ver 9y ago

The thing with meritocracy is that, at the end of the day, a person is making those value judgements. A person with their own set of biases and prejudices. And especially in code, there is very little in the way of "This code is objectively better than that code."

forgottenpass 9y ago
I don't think the point is about avoiding value judgements, just setting scope of them. And yes, any judgement can quickly turn into yak shaving. I don't know that this is about mathematical precision, it always reads more like saying "put down the goddamn shears!"
- icebraining 9y ago
  I think you mean bike-shedding.