8 ms·

Funny that their code of conduct contains all the standard equal rights no matter what XYZ, while this was never Linus problem. He never lashed out on people be

Funny that their code of conduct contains all the standard equal rights no matter what XYZ, while this was never Linus problem. He never lashed out on people because of gender, race or sexual preference. It should simply have said "Don't be an elitistic assh*le aginst people just doing their best."

funkythings 8y ago
well, the lady who wrote the COC is a communist who believes meritocracy is racist and sexist. That's where the ideas some from.
- m_mueller 8y ago
  > who believes meritocracy is racist and sexist Is it bad that nowadays I've trouble identifying whether this kind of categorization is redpillers bile or an accurate representation of an increasingly dominant extreme left? Would you have a quote from that lady, and if correct, how did she get in the position of writing Linux COC?
  - chroma 8y ago
    Here’s one: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/874642259672801280 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/874642259672801280 > “Meritocracy” is just thinly veiled misogyny and white supremacy propping up fragile cis het white men’s egos. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029952846492565504 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029952846492565504 > “Reverse racism” is such a weird phrase for “justice”. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/823064825366360065 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/823064825366360065 > Why didn’t anyone punch the reporter giving the nazi air time? (Note that the last one is endorsing violence against journalists. Not cool.) Though I think you have the wrong impression. Coraline wasn’t asked to write the Linux CoC. They just used a CoC she wrote: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      OK, so I can't really find fault with the CoC itself, but the motivation as described in your link is indeed questionable, though I'd say worthy of discussion: > Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people. So, if merit is used to excuse bad behavior I agree that it's a problem (a fairly solvable one though I'd think). But I also detect an inequality-of-outcome kind of stance here, as inequality due to merits is seen as a bad thing. I just always have trouble imagining the end game of that kind of thinking - even in Stalinism, people with higher abilities were selected for various more demanding tasks. Are they saying that everyone is absolutely born with the same abilities? Because that's just so easy to falsify with data.
      - lordlimecat 8y ago
        > Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality Inequality is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is the reasons for that inequality that can be unjust. If you and I are unequal in society either because you made poor decisions or else were unwilling to work as hard as me, that is in fact "just" even if it is not "equal". Equality at all costs simply does not work, which is why it has failed every time humanity has tried to enforce it on society. We should fight inequality that results from factors like ethnicity, ideology, and disability, but what's interesting to note is that people like Coraline have shown no qualms about creating inequality for those with different political views-- calling even for the explulsion of OSS devs from projects where their only crime is holding a different political view in private. It's hard to read her comments and the phrasing of the CoC and not think that its purpose is to allow purging those who commit "wrongthink".
      - ghusbands 8y ago
        Part of the point is that the unprivileged don't get the same opportunities in many ways, so they don't do so well in tests but they still do well at the job; therefore, you need to give them extra leeway during recruiting and such. Also, the experience of the less privileged is that some people use claimed-impartial tests and barriers to exclude them in particular, and so when a test comes along it is demotivating, as it might just be an attempt to exclude them. Look at the voting reforms in various places for examples of this. Using tests to try for pure meritocracy only works when everyone has had the same kind of background and nobody has bias. Look at the examples of CVs/books sent around with just the name/gender changed and the huge difference in response rate to see the bias. Essentially, if you're recruiting (or filtering any set of people) and aren't actively controlling for bias (anonymization is key), you will be biased.
  - rurounijones 8y ago
    Not that I believe the fierceness of the assertion however. The CoC's writer's blogpost https://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/ https://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/ certainly proves she has issues with the term "meritocracy" > At first I had my doubts. I was well aware of GitHub's very problematic past, from its promotion of meritocracy in place of a management system And most articles I have read detail the idea that "meritocracy" is inherently biased because it is men deciding the merit (since male dominated) https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ She wrote a COC and various projects have adopted it to a lesser and greater extent and with varying levels of controversy
    - m_mueller 8y ago
      Thanks, see also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18281843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18281843.
  - pokemongoaway 8y ago
    It is extremely easy to look this up... Just check the screenshot in my above comment, Twitter, the post-meritocracy site, Coreline's blog, etc... When Coreline was Corey, he was not an activist - and was not given such power. When he was a man he worked in a meritocracy. Now that he's changed his gender he wants a "post-meritocracy." This is not hateful to say; it is merely an account of history. And if you're going to call me out for saying "he" - remember every cell in his body has a Y chromosome in it, and what language policing you will have to endure if it were enforced (which is it becoming, as you can see by the fact that my comment history is mostly censored).
    - Foobarcomments 8y ago
      As concerned as I am on the authoritarian left's stifling of debate nowadays, the author's gender change is irrelevant. I interpret you mentioning their gender change as ill-intention.
  - lordlimecat 8y ago
    Take a look at her comments on github and judge for yourself. https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 She wants to tar and feather an OSS contributor for views expressed on a personal twitter account. Further down searches through his ~400 git repositories, finds two with potentially offensive names (which have rational explanations, including being non-native english speaker), and uses that as basis to continue witch hunt. Eric Raymond did a good write up on what's happening here that I certainly found insightful. He gives a description that perfectly describes what you see in that github issue: "What’s there is totalitarianism in miniature: ideology is everything, merit counts for nothing against the suppression of thoughtcrime, and politics is conducted by naked intimidation against any who refuse to conform." http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
- rs23296008n1 8y ago
  Having read her twitter posts she's no lady. Some of the most toxic vitriol available. She would easily fail her own code of conduct rules.
  - DoreenMichele 8y ago
    That's actually pretty typical of crusaders, IME. Most of them don't actually want to end the Lord of the Flies pecking order. They just want to shift around who is on top crapping on people and who is getting crapped on. Generally speaking, they want to do the crapping (along with some highly arbitrary set of "their people") and whomever currently has privilege they would like to see getting crapped on. Their "vision" is a form of revenge fantasy, basically, not actually a better world.
    - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
      This is where it's at. Also this ... palaver about equality is, well, nonsense simply because, well, people, on the whole, can't be nice. Not in any longterm, meaningful way. Make no mistake, if the current system where replaced tomorrow by one dreamed up by some other set of people, it would come with it's own complete set of bugs.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - rs23296008n1 8y ago
        People can easily be nice. But they are afraid. Being nice is seen as being weak and vulnerable in this culture and several others. The societies as a whole are sick and twisted away from basic humility and useful cooperation.
  - thefz 8y ago
    The problem with his/her/whatever CoC is this: > regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation Basically "your code won't be merged because you are not skilled enough" falls under 'level of experience, education, socio-economic status'. Expect HUGE shitshows on Git from social justice warriors for the most futile of reasons. They just want to DDOS existing projects with superficial lamentations. See Python's master/slave controversy.
- alerighi 8y ago
  She is not communist, communism is all about meritocracy, I don't read anywhere in the books of Marx all this gender and equality bullshit. Communism says that no matter who you are you are evaluated for the work you do, having policies that explicitally favorites womans is not communism, is discrimination against mens
  - stareatgoats 8y ago
    I'm assuming by 'communism' you mean Marxist philosophy. The most accurate description would however probably be that morals like this don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are tied to each stage in social development (hunter/gatherers, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism) [0]. Under socialism (the next stage from ours) workers would be rewarded according to contribution (meritocracy) whereas the final stage (communism) would reward humans according to need instead. It's a philosophy colored by the positivism and development optimism of the 19th century, which tried to superimpose a deterministic (scientific) model on history unfolding, with contemporary Europe at its development pinnacle. Whether it is a correct theory remains to be seen (in a few thousand years, but I wouldn't hold my breath), but the case could be made that we are already gradually leaving the capitalist stage, and that we are even moving into communist territory (rewarding according to need - affirmative action etc), i.e. with the stages simultaneously coexisting with one another, without the violent revolutionary disruptions that traditional Marxists anticipated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Stages_of_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Sta...
    - gnulinux 8y ago
      There is no "stages" in Marxism. That's a Stalinist bullshit that doesn't make any sense in the theoretical framework of Marx&Engels. The natural force that makes capitalism possible is commodity production because: as long as there are commodities this implies a division of labor where a labor produces something for the sole reason trade and thus implies social class; and as long as there is commodity production you'll have the accumulation of value. Communism is in direct opposition to social class and value. The Marxist idea is instead that communism is the society where the natural force that generates capitalism is somehow killed, this implies the society will not have social class, will not have value (and as an implication no trade, since in Marxism value is determined in the moment of trade, and that moment alone). Thus thinking about "stages" where some "State" is governing "towards" a classless, valueless, stateless society makes as much as the rest of Stalinism. Traditional Marxism predicts a communist revolution much like French Revolution.
- C1sc0cat 8y ago
  She is not wrong the author that coined the phrase in the 50's said basically the same - he did not in any way "meritocracy " was a good thing.
  - ensignro2340 8y ago
    Wow. TIL. Thanks for this comment even though people are downvoting you into oblivion. Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay[2][12][13][14][15] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, ... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).[17] (mine) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy (wiki's) [2] Young, Michael (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870-2033: An essay on education and inequality. London: Thames & Hudson. [12] Young, Michael (29 June 2001). "Down with meritocracy: The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it". The Guardian. London. [13] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7. [14] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7. [15] Best, Shaun (2005). Understanding Social Divisions. London: Sage. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7619-4296-2. [17] Young, Michael (1958). p. 11.
newnewpdro 8y ago
Obviously the COC isn't written just to control Linus' behavior.
- AnnoyingSwede 8y ago
  The timing is impeccable, would you not agree?
  - newnewpdro 8y ago
    The timing is easily explained from the perspective of the New Yorker's article publication and a want to do something visible to the contrary as evidence of a willingness to improve as a community. Hence why the CoC is a whole lot broader in scope than anything Linus has ever done. It's more of a "while we're here on this subject and have everyone's attention, let's clean house a bit."
- rs23296008n1 8y ago
  No. It's designed to be used to wedge, curtail and essentially interfere with the projects to which it is attached. It's scope will expand to fill the space available to it. Simple as that. Quotas, funding limitations and project oversight requirements on projects will arrive in increasing numbers as time goes on.
  - Ws32ok 8y ago
    Definitely seen the divides it's created in the communities. The CoC discussion is likely a positive thing as it is bringing up issues that need light in them. I'd like to see some evidence of the funding limitations, quotas etc. That said, a lot of the CoC discussion rapidly goes into political discussions about meritocracy / Marxism. As I'm reading "Gulag Archipelago" at the moment, I'm starting to see some parallels in the modern world we as a species should definitely have already learnt from. The number of deaths from Marxism and Nazism is horrific.
pokemongoaway 8y ago
Hi AnnoyingSwede, myself and many others disagree with you and cannot see how you could want something other than a meritocracy. In what way is meritocracy lacking merit? I've not seen anyone explain this - but rather just try to force their view points using authoritarianism. It doesn't take much more than the Tweet history of the author to realize that their level of crazed vulgarity way surpasses Linus, if that is the charge (which it seems to be): https://i.imgur.com/aksUZ7Z.png https://i.imgur.com/aksUZ7Z.png

funkythings 8y ago

well, the lady who wrote the COC is a communist who believes meritocracy is racist and sexist. That's where the ideas some from.

m_mueller 8y ago
> who believes meritocracy is racist and sexist Is it bad that nowadays I've trouble identifying whether this kind of categorization is redpillers bile or an accurate representation of an increasingly dominant extreme left? Would you have a quote from that lady, and if correct, how did she get in the position of writing Linux COC?
- chroma 8y ago
  Here’s one: https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/874642259672801280 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/874642259672801280 > “Meritocracy” is just thinly veiled misogyny and white supremacy propping up fragile cis het white men’s egos. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029952846492565504 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/1029952846492565504 > “Reverse racism” is such a weird phrase for “justice”. Or https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/823064825366360065 https://twitter.com/CoralineAda/status/823064825366360065 > Why didn’t anyone punch the reporter giving the nazi air time? (Note that the last one is endorsing violence against journalists. Not cool.) Though I think you have the wrong impression. Coraline wasn’t asked to write the Linux CoC. They just used a CoC she wrote: https://www.contributor-covenant.org/ https://www.contributor-covenant.org/
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    OK, so I can't really find fault with the CoC itself, but the motivation as described in your link is indeed questionable, though I'd say worthy of discussion: > Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality. People with “merit” are often excused for their bad behavior in public spaces based on the value of their technical contributions. Meritocracy also naively assumes a level playing field, in which everyone has access to the same resources, free time, and common life experiences to draw upon. These factors and more make contributing to open source a daunting prospect for many people, especially women and other underrepresented people. So, if merit is used to excuse bad behavior I agree that it's a problem (a fairly solvable one though I'd think). But I also detect an inequality-of-outcome kind of stance here, as inequality due to merits is seen as a bad thing. I just always have trouble imagining the end game of that kind of thinking - even in Stalinism, people with higher abilities were selected for various more demanding tasks. Are they saying that everyone is absolutely born with the same abilities? Because that's just so easy to falsify with data.
    - lordlimecat 8y ago
      > Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality Inequality is not in and of itself a bad thing. It is the reasons for that inequality that can be unjust. If you and I are unequal in society either because you made poor decisions or else were unwilling to work as hard as me, that is in fact "just" even if it is not "equal". Equality at all costs simply does not work, which is why it has failed every time humanity has tried to enforce it on society. We should fight inequality that results from factors like ethnicity, ideology, and disability, but what's interesting to note is that people like Coraline have shown no qualms about creating inequality for those with different political views-- calling even for the explulsion of OSS devs from projects where their only crime is holding a different political view in private. It's hard to read her comments and the phrasing of the CoC and not think that its purpose is to allow purging those who commit "wrongthink".
    - ghusbands 8y ago
      Part of the point is that the unprivileged don't get the same opportunities in many ways, so they don't do so well in tests but they still do well at the job; therefore, you need to give them extra leeway during recruiting and such. Also, the experience of the less privileged is that some people use claimed-impartial tests and barriers to exclude them in particular, and so when a test comes along it is demotivating, as it might just be an attempt to exclude them. Look at the voting reforms in various places for examples of this. Using tests to try for pure meritocracy only works when everyone has had the same kind of background and nobody has bias. Look at the examples of CVs/books sent around with just the name/gender changed and the huge difference in response rate to see the bias. Essentially, if you're recruiting (or filtering any set of people) and aren't actively controlling for bias (anonymization is key), you will be biased.
- rurounijones 8y ago
  Not that I believe the fierceness of the assertion however. The CoC's writer's blogpost https://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/ https://where.coraline.codes/blog/my-year-at-github/ certainly proves she has issues with the term "meritocracy" > At first I had my doubts. I was well aware of GitHub's very problematic past, from its promotion of meritocracy in place of a management system And most articles I have read detail the idea that "meritocracy" is inherently biased because it is men deciding the merit (since male dominated) https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ She wrote a COC and various projects have adopted it to a lesser and greater extent and with varying levels of controversy
  - m_mueller 8y ago
    Thanks, see also my other comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18281843 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18281843.
- pokemongoaway 8y ago
  It is extremely easy to look this up... Just check the screenshot in my above comment, Twitter, the post-meritocracy site, Coreline's blog, etc... When Coreline was Corey, he was not an activist - and was not given such power. When he was a man he worked in a meritocracy. Now that he's changed his gender he wants a "post-meritocracy." This is not hateful to say; it is merely an account of history. And if you're going to call me out for saying "he" - remember every cell in his body has a Y chromosome in it, and what language policing you will have to endure if it were enforced (which is it becoming, as you can see by the fact that my comment history is mostly censored).
  - Foobarcomments 8y ago
    As concerned as I am on the authoritarian left's stifling of debate nowadays, the author's gender change is irrelevant. I interpret you mentioning their gender change as ill-intention.
- lordlimecat 8y ago
  Take a look at her comments on github and judge for yourself. https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 https://github.com/opal/opal/issues/941 She wants to tar and feather an OSS contributor for views expressed on a personal twitter account. Further down searches through his ~400 git repositories, finds two with potentially offensive names (which have rational explanations, including being non-native english speaker), and uses that as basis to continue witch hunt. Eric Raymond did a good write up on what's happening here that I certainly found insightful. He gives a description that perfectly describes what you see in that github issue: "What’s there is totalitarianism in miniature: ideology is everything, merit counts for nothing against the suppression of thoughtcrime, and politics is conducted by naked intimidation against any who refuse to conform." http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918 http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=6918
rs23296008n1 8y ago
Having read her twitter posts she's no lady. Some of the most toxic vitriol available. She would easily fail her own code of conduct rules.
- DoreenMichele 8y ago
  That's actually pretty typical of crusaders, IME. Most of them don't actually want to end the Lord of the Flies pecking order. They just want to shift around who is on top crapping on people and who is getting crapped on. Generally speaking, they want to do the crapping (along with some highly arbitrary set of "their people") and whomever currently has privilege they would like to see getting crapped on. Their "vision" is a form of revenge fantasy, basically, not actually a better world.
  - TheSpiceIsLife 8y ago
    This is where it's at. Also this ... palaver about equality is, well, nonsense simply because, well, people, on the whole, can't be nice. Not in any longterm, meaningful way. Make no mistake, if the current system where replaced tomorrow by one dreamed up by some other set of people, it would come with it's own complete set of bugs.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - rs23296008n1 8y ago
      People can easily be nice. But they are afraid. Being nice is seen as being weak and vulnerable in this culture and several others. The societies as a whole are sick and twisted away from basic humility and useful cooperation.
- thefz 8y ago
  The problem with his/her/whatever CoC is this: > regardless of age, body size, disability, ethnicity, sex characteristics, gender identity and expression, level of experience, education, socio-economic status, nationality, personal appearance, race, religion, or sexual identity and orientation Basically "your code won't be merged because you are not skilled enough" falls under 'level of experience, education, socio-economic status'. Expect HUGE shitshows on Git from social justice warriors for the most futile of reasons. They just want to DDOS existing projects with superficial lamentations. See Python's master/slave controversy.
alerighi 8y ago
She is not communist, communism is all about meritocracy, I don't read anywhere in the books of Marx all this gender and equality bullshit. Communism says that no matter who you are you are evaluated for the work you do, having policies that explicitally favorites womans is not communism, is discrimination against mens
- stareatgoats 8y ago
  I'm assuming by 'communism' you mean Marxist philosophy. The most accurate description would however probably be that morals like this don't exist in a metaphysical sense, but are tied to each stage in social development (hunter/gatherers, slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism and communism) [0]. Under socialism (the next stage from ours) workers would be rewarded according to contribution (meritocracy) whereas the final stage (communism) would reward humans according to need instead. It's a philosophy colored by the positivism and development optimism of the 19th century, which tried to superimpose a deterministic (scientific) model on history unfolding, with contemporary Europe at its development pinnacle. Whether it is a correct theory remains to be seen (in a few thousand years, but I wouldn't hold my breath), but the case could be made that we are already gradually leaving the capitalist stage, and that we are even moving into communist territory (rewarding according to need - affirmative action etc), i.e. with the stages simultaneously coexisting with one another, without the violent revolutionary disruptions that traditional Marxists anticipated. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Stages_of_history https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#Sta...
  - gnulinux 8y ago
    There is no "stages" in Marxism. That's a Stalinist bullshit that doesn't make any sense in the theoretical framework of Marx&Engels. The natural force that makes capitalism possible is commodity production because: as long as there are commodities this implies a division of labor where a labor produces something for the sole reason trade and thus implies social class; and as long as there is commodity production you'll have the accumulation of value. Communism is in direct opposition to social class and value. The Marxist idea is instead that communism is the society where the natural force that generates capitalism is somehow killed, this implies the society will not have social class, will not have value (and as an implication no trade, since in Marxism value is determined in the moment of trade, and that moment alone). Thus thinking about "stages" where some "State" is governing "towards" a classless, valueless, stateless society makes as much as the rest of Stalinism. Traditional Marxism predicts a communist revolution much like French Revolution.
C1sc0cat 8y ago
She is not wrong the author that coined the phrase in the 50's said basically the same - he did not in any way "meritocracy " was a good thing.
- ensignro2340 8y ago
  Wow. TIL. Thanks for this comment even though people are downvoting you into oblivion. Although the concept has existed for centuries, the term "meritocracy" is relatively new. It was used pejoratively by British politician and sociologist Michael Young in his 1958 satirical essay[2][12][13][14][15] The Rise of the Meritocracy, which pictured the United Kingdom under the rule of a government favouring intelligence and aptitude (merit) above all else, ... In this book the term had distinctly negative connotations as Young questioned both the legitimacy of the selection process used to become a member of this elite and the outcomes of being ruled by such a narrowly defined group. The essay, written in the first person by a fictional historical narrator in 2034, interweaves history from the politics of pre- and post-war Britain with those of fictional future events in the short (1960 onward) and long term (2020 onward).[17] (mine) [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy#Etymology [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy (wiki's) [2] Young, Michael (1958). The rise of the meritocracy, 1870-2033: An essay on education and inequality. London: Thames & Hudson. [12] Young, Michael (29 June 2001). "Down with meritocracy: The man who coined the word four decades ago wishes Tony Blair would stop using it". The Guardian. London. [13] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7. [14] Ford, Boris (1992). The Cambridge cultural history of Britain. Cambridge University Press. p. 34. ISBN 978-0-521-42889-7. [15] Best, Shaun (2005). Understanding Social Divisions. London: Sage. p. 32. ISBN 978-0-7619-4296-2. [17] Young, Michael (1958). p. 11.

newnewpdro 8y ago

Obviously the COC isn't written just to control Linus' behavior.

AnnoyingSwede 8y ago
The timing is impeccable, would you not agree?
- newnewpdro 8y ago
  The timing is easily explained from the perspective of the New Yorker's article publication and a want to do something visible to the contrary as evidence of a willingness to improve as a community. Hence why the CoC is a whole lot broader in scope than anything Linus has ever done. It's more of a "while we're here on this subject and have everyone's attention, let's clean house a bit."
rs23296008n1 8y ago
No. It's designed to be used to wedge, curtail and essentially interfere with the projects to which it is attached. It's scope will expand to fill the space available to it. Simple as that. Quotas, funding limitations and project oversight requirements on projects will arrive in increasing numbers as time goes on.
- Ws32ok 8y ago
  Definitely seen the divides it's created in the communities. The CoC discussion is likely a positive thing as it is bringing up issues that need light in them. I'd like to see some evidence of the funding limitations, quotas etc. That said, a lot of the CoC discussion rapidly goes into political discussions about meritocracy / Marxism. As I'm reading "Gulag Archipelago" at the moment, I'm starting to see some parallels in the modern world we as a species should definitely have already learnt from. The number of deaths from Marxism and Nazism is horrific.

pokemongoaway 8y ago

Hi AnnoyingSwede, myself and many others disagree with you and cannot see how you could want something other than a meritocracy. In what way is meritocracy lacking merit? I've not seen anyone explain this - but rather just try to force their view points using authoritarianism. It doesn't take much more than the Tweet history of the author to realize that their level of crazed vulgarity way surpasses Linus, if that is the charge (which it seems to be): https://i.imgur.com/aksUZ7Z.png https://i.imgur.com/aksUZ7Z.png