8 ms·

Code of Merit: A meritocratic approach to project management (2016)

48 points by _Marak_ 8y ago

ergo14 8y ago
I don't get why this would be an alternative - those two can and should supplement eachother.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- pjc50 8y ago
  No, this is clearly a direct contradiction of a standard code of conduct; its intent appears to be to rule all the behaviour of the participants, especially the established ones, out of consideration.
  - ergo14 8y ago
    Please point me to paragraph that says something like that.
play2computers 8y ago
While this is an interesting idea, I'm not sure such an approach is going to work long term. This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an impact on the project itself. To make a rather extreme example (Godwin says hi), if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object to him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line?
- dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
  > Godwin says hi That escalated pretty quickly.
- devit 8y ago
  Anyone can trivially contribute with a false identity to most projects, so it makes no sense to try to "prevent Hitler from contributing".
- xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
  >if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object to him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line? There's no need to draw the line. As long as Hitler writes good code and behaves well on project's mailing lists, issue trackers etc., I would have no problem with him being a project member.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    Could anyone who is downvoting here explain why? Why should we prevent someone from contributing something good, thus hurting ourselves in the process, because they otherwise do something bad?
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Why would you want to stop someone you see as bad from contributing to something you see as good? If that was the only good thing he was able to do, why not encourage him and help him? It doesn't help to shun people just because you don't like them or what they do instead of helping them, persuading them, and encouraging them to grow. If Hitler wanted to join my code project, I'd try to help steer him in the right direction and teach him to contribute something worthwhile.
  - jawns 8y ago
    > If Hitler wanted to join my code project, I'd try to help steer him in the right direction and teach him to contribute something worthwhile. I imagine you would have no worries about what might happen if Hitler's PRs are rejected and he gets angry about that?
    - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
      You don't really need a Code of Conduct/Merit for that. If what you're alluding to is "Hitler will call for genocide if his PRs are rejected", then we already have something for that. It's called "The Law".
    - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
      So, the solution to that would be to exclude him from the project, because while you fear the consequences of rejecting PRs from him, you see no risk in rejecting him outright as a person?
- yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
  Discussions often go down this road, and it leads to nonsensical arguments like "well Hitler didn't like fox hunting, and Hitler is bad, therefore fox hunting is good". There is nothing morally wrong with Hitler contributing code to a project, provided there's nothing morally wrong with the impact that code has. Most of the argument around CoCs is along the lines of "Hitler wants to exterminate people like me, therefore I don't feel safe being associated with this community, therefore Hitler should be excluded to make the community more inclusive." Maybe the answer is that there should be less "community" around a project, and the work should speak for itself. (I wonder how quickly someone will misinterpret my words as a defence of bigotry or National Socialism…)
- chmike 8y ago
  I would draw the line relative to the project interest. People are not bad or good. Only acts are bad or good, and even in this case it may depend on the point of view. If a pedophile or any other kind of criminal provide a pertinent pull request, I will accept it. Discussions in the project must be respectful and professional. Rejects must be justified.
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    > If a pedophile or any other kind of criminal Pedophilia is not criminal (in "civilized" countries), it's just a sexual orientation. What you might be thinking of is child abuse. Please don't confound those two, because being a pedophile is neither a choice nor does it make you a child abuser, nor is all child abuse done by pedophiles. edit: lol, downvotes for this? Really? I'd really be curious how those downvotes correlate with support for CoCs.
- endominus 8y ago
  A few counterpoints; >This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an impact on the project itself. 1. Clause 11 does. Let's abstract the example of the social pariah you gave, since as you pointed out, Godwin's already got your number. Let's say we were talking about the sub-human degenerates, the utter voids of moral thought and character, the unforgivable scum, that are pro-skub. Now, while I hate them as much as any upstanding conscientious person does, I have to grant that this code of merit does not give them a remit to advance their hideous philosophy through the use of the software (as long as the society they are in is civilized enough to ban all of the actions we hate these people for). 2. It is not a given that a private or open-source software project has the social duty to ferret out secret pro-skubists. If I, for example, were to allow my neighbors the use of my lawn for social events, am I responsible for validating that none of the, in their heart of hearts, secretly desires the spread of that plague upon our species? Should I conduct a personality test on a fellow before holding the door for him, to ensure that I never help one of these vile cretins? 3. Even if this "person" is known to be pro-skub, are we obligated to refuse them any access to our community? If one of them, like the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, can cease his endless spewing of nauseating ideology to write valid helpful code, am I under a moral obligation to refuse it? If so, why? As long as they keep their disgusting opinions out of the professional space in which said code is offered and judged, I can isolate them in my mind as a code fountain and think nothing more of them. And if they do so dare to proselytize their villainy, this code of merit gives us the authority to remove the post-haste. 4. On a strategic anti-skub level, I disagree that total shunning accomplishes a useful objective. Ideally, we want the to understand that they are wrong people with bad opinions. Refusing any interaction with them will not accomplish this, as they will simply be led into more extreme pro-skub echo chambers that reinforce this twisted, amoral world view. How will they ever be led to the righteous path, if every guide shuts the door in their faces?
xyproto 8y ago
I think the whole concept of "final say" is both poorly defined and poorly thought out. Should people not be allowed to speak their mind? Should they not be free to do work (merit) in the direction of their choosing? It should be up to the project owners if the work should be included in their project or not, but "final say"? Pffft.
pjc50 8y ago
This establishes the "dictator for life" idiom without bothering with the figleaf of "benevolent".
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Not really; it just establishes that people who do work and create things of value have some kind of claim to continuing that work and controlling its growth. The alternative is probably the "tyranny of the outside majority". You can't do things _other_ people, unrelated to your work, don't like.
  - detaro 8y ago
    That's not the alternative. E.g. the Linux CoC explicitly only governs activity inside the project, or while representing the project (the latter is an interesting but IMHO necessary scope problem). The board tasked with enforcing it is entirely built from high-ranking contributors.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  The mechanism for that is really outside the scope of such codes, that is what the licence is for, and that's where the idea of the BDFL comes from: While the established structure recognizes someone as the de-facto leader, there is no mechanism for that leader to actually stay in power if a large majority of the contributors want them gone, because a Free Software licence ensures that people can just fork if the dictator isn't sufficiently benevolent in their eyes.
mabbo 8y ago
> Individual characteristics, including but not limited to, body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, nationality, or political preferences are irrelevant in the scope of the project and will not be taken into account concerning your value or that of your contribution to the project. This sounds good, but a clause like this can easily backfire. What happens if a high ranking member is (whether they know it or not) a bigot or sexist? Anytime someone tries to challenge them calling out their behavior, they're likely to point to this Code and say "stop making this about gender/race as that violates the code of merit". They can use the very rules meant to stop them as a weapon to silence those who would criticize. The document presumes good intentions by all those participating. Good intentions don't work- mechanisms do. I see no mechanisms here.
- pjc50 8y ago
  I'd assumed that was the intent: if someone says "my contributions are not being taken seriously because I'm a woman" or "I sent in a patch request and the maintainer asked for nudes", this code facilitates banning the complainer from the project.
  - VonGallifrey 8y ago
    I would say that this is the most negative interpretation possible that you have there. It can also be interpreted in the way that the maintainer is breaking this code of merit if the maintainer is evaluating the contribution on anything other then merit. It certainly does not sound to me like this Code of Merit is specifically for supporting sexism like you imply here. It is just specifically against the Idea that Merit or Meritocracy is "dead" which is a common view of those pushing for the usual Code of Conduct stuff.
  - ergo14 8y ago
    What you just wrote makes no sense, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
- delinka 8y ago
  "Anytime someone tries to challenge them calling out their behavior..." Where is this happening? The CoM says it can't happen on the project mailing list, or the project forum, or the project issues page ... Doing it on Twitter? Not within the project and fair game.
jawns 8y ago
Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? People who are ostracized by projects with a Code of Conduct. Or, to put it another way, if you're a jerk and you argue with other contributors about an on-topic issue in a jerky way, then under a Code of Merit, you still come out on top as long as you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!), even if it leaves other contributors feeling put down. Granted, there is some overlap. For example, both the Code of Merit and most codes of conduct disallow disparaging remarks based on protected characteristics. But the Code of Merit disallows them because they're considered irrelevant to the project, whereas codes of conduct disallow them because they're affronts to dignity. I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more problematic.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Based on what _you_ define as affronts to dignity. There are a lot of very intelligent people who see problems with society and critique society, but society doesn't like that much. Intelligent people do very good work and tend to get along with other people who think deeply. If an affront to dignity is simply a well thought out critique or parody of society, I can see Code of Merit projects doing very well indeed...
- notacoward 8y ago
  > who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit Nobody. That doesn't even seem to be the intent; it's not so much something to be adopted on its own merit as it is a passive-aggressive critique of real codes of conduct. Note how it repeatedly addresses what one may not do to address any kind of conflict or bad behavior, but it doesn't spell out any mechanisms to enforce even its own rules. Contrary to another commenter who says this can and should exist alongside a code of conduct, I interpret this as (intentionally) undermining any such companion. It's just a not-so-clever way to imply that people who believe in codes of conduct don't believe in meritocracy (paragraph 4), lack technical prowess (para 6), seek disruption and deviation (paras 7 and 14) - all without actually having the guts to come out and say so. Thus it falls afoul of its own injunction to "discuss or debate the idea" (paragraph 9) because it doesn't even mention - let alone address - the arguments in favor of what it seeks to destroy.
pferde 8y ago
If you have to write this down and formalize it, you have already lost.
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  In a private context yes, but in a public context where there are outside influences and attacks, it can be useful to have group norms that are explicit. It tends to attract people who believe implicitly in the norms. It is a way of signaling overtly what sort of culture the original maintainers possess.
rectang 8y ago
The author who coined the term "meritocracy", Michael Young, meant it as satire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy > "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." Here are the two key criteria from the Code of Merit governing how contributors are rewarded: > 4. Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned. > 5. Software is evolutive: the better implementations must supersede lesser implementations. Technical advantage is the primary evaluation metric. However, these are inherently subjective measures, dependent on who is among the project's "managing members" and thus in a position to propose candidates and render judgement. At the very least it is an unstable system in the absence of formal governance mechanisms (e.g. 2/3 majority rule on proposed candidates) and committed leadership. Ultimately, it is frighteningly difficult to avoid calcifying into an exclusive group, fulfilling the satirical prophesies of "meritocracy".
- brobdingnagians 8y ago
  Ultimately, the person who originally created the project had a good idea and has a claim to the products [it is _their_ "original fork" anyhow, and anyone else can fork the project if they want.]. It is difficult for _any_ open source or self organizing group to come up with good leadership. The default is the originators and those who they think are contributing. That is what forking is for, if something calcifies, re-vitalize it with a new repository and your own control. Open source gives you control over things, either as a creator, or for your own purposes as a fork. You can fork it and put it under a CoC if you want, then see who contributes where. That's what the _free_ part of open source refers to. It is difficult for _any_ group to not calcify into a leadership position, but I'd rather have the calcified remnants of those who produced something at some time, instead of having an arbitrary committee based on modern liberal ideals and pushed by an external group.
alkonaut 8y ago
This to me looks like the "all lives matter" equvialent. It's basically an idea that no one can object to on face value, because there is obviously nothing objectionable about it, but when being presented as an alternative to something else it makes it completely different. This type of code will be chosen by the kind of people that were angry about the linux CoC. So sadly even though this document has nothing obviously wrong with it, it will be a huge red flag on a project.
- dri_ft 8y ago
  > This to me looks like the "all lives matter" equvialent. It's basically an idea that no one can object to on face value, because there is obviously nothing objectionable about it, but when being presented as an alternative to something else it makes it completely different. Sure, though note that this description could just as easily apply to "Black Lives Matter".
- raxxorrax 8y ago
  Like the CoC was a red flag for others. Given, I doubt that anything significant will change with or without its adoption. It was political though and therefore leaves a bad taste. It is something, but it is clearly not about inclusion or anything. Not that harassment was ever a significant problem in any repository or mailing list I visited. I think a general request for being polite is always a good thing. Mandatory behavior expectations are not. And this CoC reeks like it.
- notacoward 8y ago
  > there is obviously nothing objectionable about it I beg to differ. It's innocuous only at the most superficial level. Even a moment's reflection on how it focuses on what one may not do to address any kind of conflict, without providing alternatives, makes it pretty darn clear that this is not intended as an honest complement or critique of codes of conduct. It's more an instrument of sabotage, and that's pretty objectionable.
geofft 8y ago
If you actually believe in meritocracy, it seems like a problem that the Contributor Covenant is in use by several high-profile projects that have had no noticeable loss of technical quality or failure since adopting it, and the Code of Merit is in use by ... no one. (Google the phrase in the README to confirm that.) So, the meritocratic option is to adopt the Contributor Covenant and the incident-handling practices it comes with, which empirically help produce great projects. The only reason to adopt the Code of Merit is ideological attraction to its worldview outweighing the desire for a better technical project.
- bassman9000 8y ago
  To be fair, according to the page, it was created 4 years ago. Google and other were already large and successful before that, so it's highly unlikely it's due to said document. And inertia can explain why it hasn't affected the quality yet (if ever).

48 points by _Marak_ 8y ago

ergo14 8y ago

I don't get why this would be an alternative - those two can and should supplement eachother.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
pjc50 8y ago
No, this is clearly a direct contradiction of a standard code of conduct; its intent appears to be to rule all the behaviour of the participants, especially the established ones, out of consideration.
- ergo14 8y ago
  Please point me to paragraph that says something like that.

play2computers 8y ago

While this is an interesting idea, I'm not sure such an approach is going to work long term. This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an impact on the project itself. To make a rather extreme example (Godwin says hi), if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object to him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line?

dvfjsdhgfv 8y ago
> Godwin says hi That escalated pretty quickly.
devit 8y ago
Anyone can trivially contribute with a false identity to most projects, so it makes no sense to try to "prevent Hitler from contributing".
xeeeeeeeeeeenu 8y ago
>if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object to him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line? There's no need to draw the line. As long as Hitler writes good code and behaves well on project's mailing lists, issue trackers etc., I would have no problem with him being a project member.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  Could anyone who is downvoting here explain why? Why should we prevent someone from contributing something good, thus hurting ourselves in the process, because they otherwise do something bad?
brobdingnagians 8y ago
Why would you want to stop someone you see as bad from contributing to something you see as good? If that was the only good thing he was able to do, why not encourage him and help him? It doesn't help to shun people just because you don't like them or what they do instead of helping them, persuading them, and encouraging them to grow. If Hitler wanted to join my code project, I'd try to help steer him in the right direction and teach him to contribute something worthwhile.
- jawns 8y ago
  > If Hitler wanted to join my code project, I'd try to help steer him in the right direction and teach him to contribute something worthwhile. I imagine you would have no worries about what might happen if Hitler's PRs are rejected and he gets angry about that?
  - yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
    You don't really need a Code of Conduct/Merit for that. If what you're alluding to is "Hitler will call for genocide if his PRs are rejected", then we already have something for that. It's called "The Law".
  - zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
    So, the solution to that would be to exclude him from the project, because while you fear the consequences of rejecting PRs from him, you see no risk in rejecting him outright as a person?
yakshaving_jgt 8y ago
Discussions often go down this road, and it leads to nonsensical arguments like "well Hitler didn't like fox hunting, and Hitler is bad, therefore fox hunting is good". There is nothing morally wrong with Hitler contributing code to a project, provided there's nothing morally wrong with the impact that code has. Most of the argument around CoCs is along the lines of "Hitler wants to exterminate people like me, therefore I don't feel safe being associated with this community, therefore Hitler should be excluded to make the community more inclusive." Maybe the answer is that there should be less "community" around a project, and the work should speak for itself. (I wonder how quickly someone will misinterpret my words as a defence of bigotry or National Socialism…)
chmike 8y ago
I would draw the line relative to the project interest. People are not bad or good. Only acts are bad or good, and even in this case it may depend on the point of view. If a pedophile or any other kind of criminal provide a pertinent pull request, I will accept it. Discussions in the project must be respectful and professional. Rejects must be justified.
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
  > If a pedophile or any other kind of criminal Pedophilia is not criminal (in "civilized" countries), it's just a sexual orientation. What you might be thinking of is child abuse. Please don't confound those two, because being a pedophile is neither a choice nor does it make you a child abuser, nor is all child abuse done by pedophiles. edit: lol, downvotes for this? Really? I'd really be curious how those downvotes correlate with support for CoCs.
endominus 8y ago
A few counterpoints; >This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an impact on the project itself. 1. Clause 11 does. Let's abstract the example of the social pariah you gave, since as you pointed out, Godwin's already got your number. Let's say we were talking about the sub-human degenerates, the utter voids of moral thought and character, the unforgivable scum, that are pro-skub. Now, while I hate them as much as any upstanding conscientious person does, I have to grant that this code of merit does not give them a remit to advance their hideous philosophy through the use of the software (as long as the society they are in is civilized enough to ban all of the actions we hate these people for). 2. It is not a given that a private or open-source software project has the social duty to ferret out secret pro-skubists. If I, for example, were to allow my neighbors the use of my lawn for social events, am I responsible for validating that none of the, in their heart of hearts, secretly desires the spread of that plague upon our species? Should I conduct a personality test on a fellow before holding the door for him, to ensure that I never help one of these vile cretins? 3. Even if this "person" is known to be pro-skub, are we obligated to refuse them any access to our community? If one of them, like the proverbial monkey at the typewriter, can cease his endless spewing of nauseating ideology to write valid helpful code, am I under a moral obligation to refuse it? If so, why? As long as they keep their disgusting opinions out of the professional space in which said code is offered and judged, I can isolate them in my mind as a code fountain and think nothing more of them. And if they do so dare to proselytize their villainy, this code of merit gives us the authority to remove the post-haste. 4. On a strategic anti-skub level, I disagree that total shunning accomplishes a useful objective. Ideally, we want the to understand that they are wrong people with bad opinions. Refusing any interaction with them will not accomplish this, as they will simply be led into more extreme pro-skub echo chambers that reinforce this twisted, amoral world view. How will they ever be led to the righteous path, if every guide shuts the door in their faces?

xyproto 8y ago

I think the whole concept of "final say" is both poorly defined and poorly thought out. Should people not be allowed to speak their mind? Should they not be free to do work (merit) in the direction of their choosing? It should be up to the project owners if the work should be included in their project or not, but "final say"? Pffft.

pjc50 8y ago

This establishes the "dictator for life" idiom without bothering with the figleaf of "benevolent".

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Not really; it just establishes that people who do work and create things of value have some kind of claim to continuing that work and controlling its growth. The alternative is probably the "tyranny of the outside majority". You can't do things _other_ people, unrelated to your work, don't like.
- detaro 8y ago
  That's not the alternative. E.g. the Linux CoC explicitly only governs activity inside the project, or while representing the project (the latter is an interesting but IMHO necessary scope problem). The board tasked with enforcing it is entirely built from high-ranking contributors.
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 8y ago
The mechanism for that is really outside the scope of such codes, that is what the licence is for, and that's where the idea of the BDFL comes from: While the established structure recognizes someone as the de-facto leader, there is no mechanism for that leader to actually stay in power if a large majority of the contributors want them gone, because a Free Software licence ensures that people can just fork if the dictator isn't sufficiently benevolent in their eyes.

mabbo 8y ago

> Individual characteristics, including but not limited to, body, sex, sexual preference, race, language, religion, nationality, or political preferences are irrelevant in the scope of the project and will not be taken into account concerning your value or that of your contribution to the project. This sounds good, but a clause like this can easily backfire. What happens if a high ranking member is (whether they know it or not) a bigot or sexist? Anytime someone tries to challenge them calling out their behavior, they're likely to point to this Code and say "stop making this about gender/race as that violates the code of merit". They can use the very rules meant to stop them as a weapon to silence those who would criticize. The document presumes good intentions by all those participating. Good intentions don't work- mechanisms do. I see no mechanisms here.

pjc50 8y ago
I'd assumed that was the intent: if someone says "my contributions are not being taken seriously because I'm a woman" or "I sent in a patch request and the maintainer asked for nudes", this code facilitates banning the complainer from the project.
- VonGallifrey 8y ago
  I would say that this is the most negative interpretation possible that you have there. It can also be interpreted in the way that the maintainer is breaking this code of merit if the maintainer is evaluating the contribution on anything other then merit. It certainly does not sound to me like this Code of Merit is specifically for supporting sexism like you imply here. It is just specifically against the Idea that Merit or Meritocracy is "dead" which is a common view of those pushing for the usual Code of Conduct stuff.
- ergo14 8y ago
  What you just wrote makes no sense, I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.
delinka 8y ago
"Anytime someone tries to challenge them calling out their behavior..." Where is this happening? The CoM says it can't happen on the project mailing list, or the project forum, or the project issues page ... Doing it on Twitter? Not within the project and fair game.

jawns 8y ago

Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit instead of a Code of Conduct? People who are ostracized by projects with a Code of Conduct. Or, to put it another way, if you're a jerk and you argue with other contributors about an on-topic issue in a jerky way, then under a Code of Merit, you still come out on top as long as you're technically correct (the best kind of correct!), even if it leaves other contributors feeling put down. Granted, there is some overlap. For example, both the Code of Merit and most codes of conduct disallow disparaging remarks based on protected characteristics. But the Code of Merit disallows them because they're considered irrelevant to the project, whereas codes of conduct disallow them because they're affronts to dignity. I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more problematic.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Based on what _you_ define as affronts to dignity. There are a lot of very intelligent people who see problems with society and critique society, but society doesn't like that much. Intelligent people do very good work and tend to get along with other people who think deeply. If an affront to dignity is simply a well thought out critique or parody of society, I can see Code of Merit projects doing very well indeed...
notacoward 8y ago
> who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit Nobody. That doesn't even seem to be the intent; it's not so much something to be adopted on its own merit as it is a passive-aggressive critique of real codes of conduct. Note how it repeatedly addresses what one may not do to address any kind of conflict or bad behavior, but it doesn't spell out any mechanisms to enforce even its own rules. Contrary to another commenter who says this can and should exist alongside a code of conduct, I interpret this as (intentionally) undermining any such companion. It's just a not-so-clever way to imply that people who believe in codes of conduct don't believe in meritocracy (paragraph 4), lack technical prowess (para 6), seek disruption and deviation (paras 7 and 14) - all without actually having the guts to come out and say so. Thus it falls afoul of its own injunction to "discuss or debate the idea" (paragraph 9) because it doesn't even mention - let alone address - the arguments in favor of what it seeks to destroy.

pferde 8y ago

If you have to write this down and formalize it, you have already lost.

brobdingnagians 8y ago
In a private context yes, but in a public context where there are outside influences and attacks, it can be useful to have group norms that are explicit. It tends to attract people who believe implicitly in the norms. It is a way of signaling overtly what sort of culture the original maintainers possess.

rectang 8y ago

The author who coined the term "meritocracy", Michael Young, meant it as satire. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy > "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others." Here are the two key criteria from the Code of Merit governing how contributors are rewarded: > 4. Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned. > 5. Software is evolutive: the better implementations must supersede lesser implementations. Technical advantage is the primary evaluation metric. However, these are inherently subjective measures, dependent on who is among the project's "managing members" and thus in a position to propose candidates and render judgement. At the very least it is an unstable system in the absence of formal governance mechanisms (e.g. 2/3 majority rule on proposed candidates) and committed leadership. Ultimately, it is frighteningly difficult to avoid calcifying into an exclusive group, fulfilling the satirical prophesies of "meritocracy".

brobdingnagians 8y ago
Ultimately, the person who originally created the project had a good idea and has a claim to the products [it is _their_ "original fork" anyhow, and anyone else can fork the project if they want.]. It is difficult for _any_ open source or self organizing group to come up with good leadership. The default is the originators and those who they think are contributing. That is what forking is for, if something calcifies, re-vitalize it with a new repository and your own control. Open source gives you control over things, either as a creator, or for your own purposes as a fork. You can fork it and put it under a CoC if you want, then see who contributes where. That's what the _free_ part of open source refers to. It is difficult for _any_ group to not calcify into a leadership position, but I'd rather have the calcified remnants of those who produced something at some time, instead of having an arbitrary committee based on modern liberal ideals and pushed by an external group.

alkonaut 8y ago

This to me looks like the "all lives matter" equvialent. It's basically an idea that no one can object to on face value, because there is obviously nothing objectionable about it, but when being presented as an alternative to something else it makes it completely different. This type of code will be chosen by the kind of people that were angry about the linux CoC. So sadly even though this document has nothing obviously wrong with it, it will be a huge red flag on a project.

dri_ft 8y ago
> This to me looks like the "all lives matter" equvialent. It's basically an idea that no one can object to on face value, because there is obviously nothing objectionable about it, but when being presented as an alternative to something else it makes it completely different. Sure, though note that this description could just as easily apply to "Black Lives Matter".
raxxorrax 8y ago
Like the CoC was a red flag for others. Given, I doubt that anything significant will change with or without its adoption. It was political though and therefore leaves a bad taste. It is something, but it is clearly not about inclusion or anything. Not that harassment was ever a significant problem in any repository or mailing list I visited. I think a general request for being polite is always a good thing. Mandatory behavior expectations are not. And this CoC reeks like it.
notacoward 8y ago
> there is obviously nothing objectionable about it I beg to differ. It's innocuous only at the most superficial level. Even a moment's reflection on how it focuses on what one may not do to address any kind of conflict, without providing alternatives, makes it pretty darn clear that this is not intended as an honest complement or critique of codes of conduct. It's more an instrument of sabotage, and that's pretty objectionable.

geofft 8y ago

If you actually believe in meritocracy, it seems like a problem that the Contributor Covenant is in use by several high-profile projects that have had no noticeable loss of technical quality or failure since adopting it, and the Code of Merit is in use by ... no one. (Google the phrase in the README to confirm that.) So, the meritocratic option is to adopt the Contributor Covenant and the incident-handling practices it comes with, which empirically help produce great projects. The only reason to adopt the Code of Merit is ideological attraction to its worldview outweighing the desire for a better technical project.

bassman9000 8y ago
To be fair, according to the page, it was created 4 years ago. Google and other were already large and successful before that, so it's highly unlikely it's due to said document. And inertia can explain why it hasn't affected the quality yet (if ever).