5 ms·

And instead one should... Attack the ``status quo''? This line of reasoning is inherently partisan and extremely political as well as divisive. Believing that m

by valvar 8y ago

And instead one should... Attack the ``status quo''? This line of reasoning is inherently partisan and extremely political as well as divisive. Believing that meritocracy is bad is a fringe belief, and in this case there really is nothing that suggests that adhering to the ``status quo'' is the non-insane alternative. Edit: I'd also like to highlight that this is a classic version of the ``you're either with us, or against us''[1] argument, i.e. a false dilemma. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_against_us https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27re_either_with_us,_or_ag...

vertex-four 8y ago
It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit. If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions.
- valvar 8y ago
  >but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach Is there some sort of evidence for this? >A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit I can buy that. But that means that you do believe in merit as a central principle. The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. >If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions. If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    > Is there some sort of evidence for this? What type of evidence would change your mind? > The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. The GPL is also founded on an ideology that rejects proprietary software, yet Linux is used by plenty of companies who develop such software. "Foundations" are just an origin story. What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy? > If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining. Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way. It doesn't matter what purpose the original writer had in mind, only the purpose of those who have the power to interpret and implement it. Do you believe the TAB has any other purpose in mind?
    - roenxi 8y ago
      > Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way. That was an outcome that was hoped for, not a purpose. The purpose is pretty explicit in the preamble paragraphs [0] - to promote a certain style of freedom. As a body, the Free Software community wouldn't deny that if creating non-free software is legal, then free software can be used to achieve that goal. They have a more fundamental objection to the government creating and then enforcing the concept of copyright. The kernel community has been very aggressive about securing that freedom for themselves, particularly in arenas such as allowing non-free drivers into the kernel. They don't take a politically activist stance of lobbying to change the law, but they don't seem to deal with code that they can't legally modify themselves. The kernel community may well be cherry-picking from the GNU strategy, but the GPL is being used as intended - to promote and secure freedom for users. > What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy? The part where it sets out that the Technical Advisory Board (aka the TAB) will presumably remove people form the community who are in breach of the code of conduct, without language that exempts people who have a long history of positive technical contribution. Everything involves tradeoffs. Being a meritocracy means that individuals of technical merit are given leeway to fumble, or even potentially abuse, the status of their position. Good example is Hans Reiser - the case was rendered moot by him being imprisoned, but a meritocracy says "the code is good, let him keep contributing" and a non-meritocractic community would presumably say "we don't want to associate with murderers". Obviously nobody wants the to encourage bad behavior, but the question being asked is /how much/ slack do great technical contributors get if they happen to be, say, autistic and antisocial. Historically, the answer has been lots of slack. In future, the answer looks like it will be corporate-acceptable-behavior, which is a higher standard. Presumably if there is a group who thinks this change is needed it will be followed by a purge of the community where marginal maintainers are pushed out. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html

by valvar 8y ago

vertex-four 8y ago

It’s really not a fringe belief outside of your circles - “meritocracy” is one of those things that sounds like a good idea, like “communism”, but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach. A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit. If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions.

valvar 8y ago
>but organisations and structures defining themselves by those words very rarely practice what they preach Is there some sort of evidence for this? >A meritocracy would never allow harassment of people on the basis of things that have nothing to do with their code - it would take a hard stance against sexism and harassment, it would attempt to communicate in a way that doesn’t drive people away from the project in a biased manner, since those and many other behaviours drive away people who may have merit I can buy that. But that means that you do believe in merit as a central principle. The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. >If anything, a well-designed code of conduct can create something closer to a real meritocracy, as you don’t drive away contributors on anything but the merit of their contributions. If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining.
- icebraining 8y ago
  > Is there some sort of evidence for this? What type of evidence would change your mind? > The new CoC is founded on an ideology that explicitly rejects it. The GPL is also founded on an ideology that rejects proprietary software, yet Linux is used by plenty of companies who develop such software. "Foundations" are just an origin story. What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy? > If that were the purpose of the new Contributor Covenant, I don't think anyone would be complaining. Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way. It doesn't matter what purpose the original writer had in mind, only the purpose of those who have the power to interpret and implement it. Do you believe the TAB has any other purpose in mind?
  - roenxi 8y ago
    > Reusing the previous example, the purpose of the GPL was to drive out proprietary software; yet the people using it in Linux do not yield it that way. That was an outcome that was hoped for, not a purpose. The purpose is pretty explicit in the preamble paragraphs [0] - to promote a certain style of freedom. As a body, the Free Software community wouldn't deny that if creating non-free software is legal, then free software can be used to achieve that goal. They have a more fundamental objection to the government creating and then enforcing the concept of copyright. The kernel community has been very aggressive about securing that freedom for themselves, particularly in arenas such as allowing non-free drivers into the kernel. They don't take a politically activist stance of lobbying to change the law, but they don't seem to deal with code that they can't legally modify themselves. The kernel community may well be cherry-picking from the GNU strategy, but the GPL is being used as intended - to promote and secure freedom for users. > What part of the actual text of the CoC prevents a meritocracy? The part where it sets out that the Technical Advisory Board (aka the TAB) will presumably remove people form the community who are in breach of the code of conduct, without language that exempts people who have a long history of positive technical contribution. Everything involves tradeoffs. Being a meritocracy means that individuals of technical merit are given leeway to fumble, or even potentially abuse, the status of their position. Good example is Hans Reiser - the case was rendered moot by him being imprisoned, but a meritocracy says "the code is good, let him keep contributing" and a non-meritocractic community would presumably say "we don't want to associate with murderers". Obviously nobody wants the to encourage bad behavior, but the question being asked is /how much/ slack do great technical contributors get if they happen to be, say, autistic and antisocial. Historically, the answer has been lots of slack. In future, the answer looks like it will be corporate-acceptable-behavior, which is a higher standard. Presumably if there is a group who thinks this change is needed it will be followed by a purge of the community where marginal maintainers are pushed out. [0] https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html