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

On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Martin J. D=C3=BCrst <[e-mail]=
.jp>
wrote:

> On 2016/01/26 01:32, Austin Ziegler wrote:
>
>> I=E2=80=99m sorry, but this, like the code of merit, is merely a deraili=
ng tactic.
>> People have been pushing the myth of meritocracy in OSS for years, but *=
it
>> just isn=E2=80=99t 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=E2=80=99t use =E2=80=9Cmeritocracy=E2=80=9D, but (a) it cites the =
Code of Merit as an
inspiration, which is a derailing document that pretty much declares that
=E2=80=9Cmeritocracy=E2=80=9D is the goal, and (b) it includes the followin=
g statement:
=E2=80=9CIdeas [are] considered equally and must stand on [their] own merit=
 and not
the reputation of the proponent=E2=80=9D as its first line. This is indicat=
ive 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=E2=80=99s always human bias involved. I=
f you
get a contribution from someone you don=E2=80=99t know vs someone you do kn=
ow, you
will *generally* prefer the contribution from someone you know even if it=
=E2=80=99s
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=E2=80=94and some offer solutions to=
=E2=80=94the
>> problems
>> with assuming that =E2=80=9CMerit=E2=80=9D 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 =E2=80=9Cperfect=E2=80=9D 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
--=20
Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 [e-mail] =E2=80=A2 austin@halostatue.c=
a
http://www.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/halostatue

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