[ruby-core:73482] Re: [Ruby trunk - Misc #12004] Code of Conduct

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Martin J. Dürst <[e-mail]>
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 merit and 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—and some offer solutions to—the
>> 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 be an 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 • [e-mail] • [e-mail]
http://www.halostatue.ca/ • http://twitter.com/halostatue

Unsubscribe: <mailto:[e-mail]?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>