On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Martin J. Drst <duerst / it.aoyama.ac.jp>
wrote:

> On 2016/01/26 01:32, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
>> I°«m sorry, but this, like the code of merit, is merely a derailing tactic.
>> People have been pushing the myth of meritocracy in OSS for years, but *it
>> just isn°«t so*. Ignore the fact that meritocracy as a term [was coined in
>> 1958](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meritocracy) in a satirical work
>> condemning the concept, if you must,
>
>

> The proposal you cited (The Pragmatists Code of Conduct) doesn't use the
> actual term. Also, there are many words in many languages that may have
> doubtful origins long ago, but nevertheless are used without such
> connotations in present-day language.


It doesn°«t use °»meritocracy°…, but (a) it cites the Code of Merit as an
inspiration, which is a derailing document that pretty much declares that
°»meritocracy°… is the goal, and (b) it includes the following statement:
°»Ideas [are] considered equally and must stand on [their] own meritand not
the reputation of the proponent°… as its first line. This is indicative that
it views *only* technical participation in the project as valid, and in
*theory* it says that the contributions are considered only on (the quality
of each contribution). In practice, this is not so in *any* human
endeavour. Essentially, the claim made here will be trivially falsifiable
on almost any project because there°«s always human bias involved. If you
get a contribution from someone you don°«t know vs someone you do know, you
will *generally* prefer the contribution from someone you know even if it°«s
not *quite* as good as the other. (Maybe not you personally, but most
people in general.)

but consider the following articles
>> which talk about the problems with°Ĺand some offer solutions to°Ĺthe
>> problems
>> with assuming that °»Merit°… is an appropriate measure:
>>
>
> For lack of time, I haven't read them all. Those that I have read point
> out that 'meritocracy' (or whatever we want to call it) isn't perfect. I
> too agree that it would not be good to assume that any 'meritocracy' is
> perfect.
>

The point of the original satire is that because of human bias, there is no
such thing as a °»perfect°… meritocracy; there will always bean elite in any
given community based on (past) contributions, and the process of becoming
such an elite will be flawed and not entirely based on merit.

-a
-- 
Austin Ziegler  halostatue / gmail.com  austin / halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/  http://twitter.com/halostatue
(supressed text/html)
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>