From: Austin Ziegler Date: 2016-01-26T14:30:38-05:00 Subject: [ruby-core:73488] Re: [Ruby trunk - Misc #12004] Code of Conduct --===============0847495052== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e4d345554aa052a41bc71 --047d7b2e4d345554aa052a41bc71 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Vit wrote: > On 2016-01-26 7:39 AM, Austin Ziegler wrote: > >> Ideas [are] considered equally and must stand on [their] own merit and >> not the reputation of the proponent >> > > I just can't see what is wrong with this important principle. This is the > ideal, even when you think it's not always the reality. > I take the stance of the sociologist who coined the term: it is not only *never* the reality, it is impossible for it to *ever* be the reality. A meritocracy eventually becomes an oligarchy with a permanent underclass. In my experience, unless you make outreach efforts, you will miss out on contributions by people who are not as comfortable with making public contributions (for reasons of shyness, language issues, uncertainty, because they know they will be targeted by harassers just because they are *different*, etc.). With outreach, you can *increase* contribution at all levels and get *better* results than you would just from the people who feel comfortable. The =E2=80=9Cmeritocratic ideal=E2=80=9D is lazy. It assumes that everyone = is extroverted somehow or somewhere. It selects for people *like you* when *diversity* is more likely to give a better result overall. At the same time, when it comes to Ruby, I would *definitely* expect Matz= =E2=80=99s (or ko1=E2=80=99s or nobu=E2=80=99s or Eric Wong=E2=80=99s or=E2=80=A6) con= tributions to be taken over my own because they have *earned* some level of trust and respect. I would still reach out to encourage others to participate, and I truly believe that positive outreach=E2=80=94including indicating that we are a Safe Spac= e That Does Not Tolerate Harassment (which, based on some contributions here, is sadly not true)=E2=80=94will net us increased participation and better *ove= rall* contributions. Some folks have claimed that Ruby is a =E2=80=9Ctechnical community=E2=80= =9D (implying by the same phrase that Ruby is a meritocracy where the best idea wins). This isn=E2=80=99t always true, and even in =E2=80=9Ctechnical communities=E2=80= =9D (e.g., =E2=80=9Cmeritocracies=E2=80=9D) or scientific communities, women have a *m= uch* harder time. See the Twitter tag #astroSH ( http://mashable.com/2016/01/15/harassment-astronomy-social-media) for examples of just how *not true* this is. In 2016, CoCs are *table stakes*. Not having one, or having something derailing like the Code of Merit or the Pragmatist=E2=80=99s Code of Conduc= t (which *enshrine* the status quo of elitism in the name of meritocracy), is indicative that you are not interested in minority contributions. > I don't think you understand what we mean by "meritocracy": > I do understand. I=E2=80=99m saying something different. > * If the proponent is a high-status maintainer, their idea SHOULD NOT > carry any MORE weight. > * If the proponent has low status, their idea SHOULD NOT carry any LESS > weight. > What I=E2=80=99m saying different is: 1. In reality, high-status maintainers *already* have ideas that carry more weight (there are plenty of examples of this in Linux kernel development, and what is systemd except this run amok?). 2. In reality, low status proponents are mostly ignored. Even in our wider community, we have had beginners mocked for the quality of their code (for which the people who mocked the offender later apologized, but it *happened* nonetheless). 3. Simply saying =E2=80=9Csubmit good ideas=E2=80=9D is insufficient when t= here may be people in your community whose behaviour may be actively driving out women or ethnic minorities or people of differing religions or differing sexuality or differing gender identities. If I were a woman watching this thread, I would be nervous about the threat =E2=80=9Cph ph=E2=80=9D made to= Coraline upthread. There is *already* an ideological purity test at work, even if it is something that Matz disavows. Isn't this what everyone is asking for? To leave social status outside and > treat everyone equally? It isn=E2=80=99t that simple. I used to believe that being colourblind/gend= erblind was the correct thing to fight racism/sexism. When I was 25. In the last fifteen years, I have learned that leads to *erasure*, which results in no real change at all in the status of those who are systematically disadvantaged by society and/or the communities in which they operate. Judging ideas on merit can=E2=80=99t even *start* to happen until you know = that you have solicited ideas from people who wouldn=E2=80=99t normally provide thos= e ideas in the first place. We can=E2=80=99t just be a place of excellence=E2=80=94= I don=E2=80=99t *want* Ruby to just be a place of excellence. I call Ruby *home* because it is the language I program in that makes me happiest. I want to help *other* people find their happiness in Ruby. I want outreach. -a --=20 Austin Ziegler =E2=80=A2 halostatue@gmail.com =E2=80=A2 austin@halostatue.c= a http://www.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/halostatue --047d7b2e4d345554aa052a41bc71 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue, Jan 26, 2016 at 11:49 AM, Andrew Vit <andrew@avit.ca= > wrote:
On 2016-01-26 7:39 AM, Austin Ziegle= r wrote:
Ideas [are] considered equally and must stand on [their] own merit and
not the reputation of the proponent

 I just can't see what is wrong with this important principle. This is t= he ideal, even when you think it's not always the reality.

I take the stance of the sociologist who coined the= term: it is not only *never* the reality, it is impossible for it to *ever= * be the reality. A meritocracy eventually becomes an oligarchy with a perm= anent underclass. In my experience, unless you make outreach efforts, you w= ill miss out on contributions by people who are not as comfortable with mak= ing public contributions (for reasons of shyness, language issues, uncertai= nty, because they know they will be targeted by harassers just because they= are *different*, etc.). With outreach, you can *increase* contribution at = all levels and get *better* results than you would just from the people who= feel comfortable.

The =E2=80=9Cmeritocratic ideal= =E2=80=9D is lazy. It assumes that everyone is extroverted somehow or somew= here. It selects for people *like you* when *diversity* is more likely to g= ive a better result overall.

At the same time, whe= n it comes to Ruby, I would *definitely* expect Matz=E2=80=99s (or ko1=E2= =80=99s or nobu=E2=80=99s or Eric Wong=E2=80=99s or=E2=80=A6) contributions= to be taken over my own because they have *earned* some level of trust and= respect. I would still reach out to encourage others to participate, and I= truly believe that positive outreach=E2=80=94including indicating that we = are a Safe Space That Does Not Tolerate Harassment (which, based on some co= ntributions here, is sadly not true)=E2=80=94will net us increased particip= ation and better *overall* contributions.

Some fol= ks have claimed that Ruby is a =E2=80=9Ctechnical community=E2=80=9D (imply= ing by the same phrase that Ruby is a meritocracy where the best idea wins)= . This isn=E2=80=99t always true, and even in =E2=80=9Ctechnical communitie= s=E2=80=9D (e.g., =E2=80=9Cmeritocracies=E2=80=9D) or scientific communitie= s, women have a *much* harder time. See the Twitter tag #astroSH (http:= //mashable.com/2016/01/15/harassment-astronomy-social-media) for exampl= es of just how *not true* this is.

In 2016, CoCs a= re *table stakes*. Not having one, or having something derailing like the C= ode of Merit or the Pragmatist=E2=80=99s Code of Conduct (which *enshrine* = the status quo of elitism in the name of meritocracy), is indicative that y= ou are not interested in minority contributions.
=C2=A0
I don't think you understand what we mean by "meritoc= racy":

I do understand. I=E2=80=99= m saying something different.
=C2=A0
* If t= he proponent is a high-status maintainer, their idea SHOULD NOT carry any M= ORE weight.
* If the proponent has low status, their idea SHOULD NOT carry any LESS wei= ght.

What I=E2=80=99m saying different = is:

1. In reality, high-status maintainers *alread= y* have ideas that carry more weight (there are plenty of examples of this = in Linux kernel development, and what is systemd except this run amok?).
2. In reality, low status proponents are mostly ignored. Even in ou= r wider community, we have had beginners mocked for the quality of their co= de (for which the people who mocked the offender later apologized, but it *= happened* nonetheless).
3. Simply saying =E2=80=9Csubmit good ide= as=E2=80=9D is insufficient when there may be people in your community whos= e behaviour may be actively driving out women or ethnic minorities or peopl= e of differing religions or differing sexuality or differing gender identit= ies. If I were a woman watching this thread, I would be nervous about the t= hreat =E2=80=9Cph ph=E2=80=9D made to Coraline upthread. There is *already*= an ideological purity test at work, even if it is something that Matz disa= vows.

Isn't this what everyone is = asking for? To leave social status outside and treat everyone equally?
=C2=A0
It isn=E2=80=99t that simple. I used to belie= ve that being colourblind/genderblind was the correct thing to fight racism= /sexism. When I was 25. In the last fifteen years, I have learned that lead= s to *erasure*, which results in no real change at all in the status of tho= se who are systematically disadvantaged by society and/or the communities i= n which they operate.

Judging ideas on merit can= =E2=80=99t even *start* to happen until you know that you have solicited id= eas from people who wouldn=E2=80=99t normally provide those ideas in the fi= rst place. We can=E2=80=99t just be a place of excellence=E2=80=94I don=E2= =80=99t *want* Ruby to just be a place of excellence. I call Ruby *home* be= cause it is the language I program in that makes me happiest. I want to hel= p *other* people find their happiness in Ruby. I want outreach.
<= br>
-a
--
Austin Zi= egler =E2=80=A2 h= alostatue@gmail.com =E2=80=A2 austin@halostatue.ca
http://www.halostatue.ca/ =E2=80=A2 http://twitter.com/hal= ostatue
--047d7b2e4d345554aa052a41bc71-- --===============0847495052== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Unsubscribe: --===============0847495052==--