sorry for the double post... I just noticed, from the blog post I linked, that GitHub replaced their "meritocracy" slogan with:
"In collaboration we trust." I like that! On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:55, Naomi Slater <n...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > "Word origins are just that - origins. What matters is the current > meaning, not where they originated. You can play that kind of game with > lots of English words, many of which have absurd origin stories." > > but it's not just a word origin. that was my point. the moral issues the > satirical novel moralizes about are directly applicable to us and our > implementation of "meritocracy". that's what makes it ironic! > > "What's relevant is now." > > but even if we look past that and just look at what the word means *now*, > we still have an issue with the way it makes us look. organizations using > the word "meritocracy" was a red flag for the sorts of people our > organization sorely lacks all the way back in 2014 > > cf. https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ > > and that public perception has only worsened since. the fact it's now > showing up in FastCompany is what prompted me to start this thread > > "Crafting our message for the small number of horrible people seems less > effective" > > I'm not saying we should do that. > > there are two issues here: > > (1) improving our external communication in a way that communicates our > desire to build an inclusive, respectful, safe, and equitable organization > (2) actually changing the way that we operate to better work towards those > goals > > doing (2) is where we will continue to be met with resistance. with people > who are upset, offended, or irritated by the work we're trying to do, the > things we're saying, and the changes we're trying to make > > I'm not saying that everyone at Apache is a "pompous blow-hard". I'm > saying that I, personally, have experienced enough here (from a vocal > minority) to know that this won't be easy work > > "And these > discussions in Apache-land are pretty consistently LESS hostile than in > other communities I'm part of." > > that's true. I left Debian permanently for this reason. but it's still > bad. and it's still enough that I have known multiple people who care about > this stuff withdraw for their own emotional, psychological, and in some > cases physical health > > Roman wrote: > > "Plus I'm still not sure what's being proposed as a replacement." > > well, I suggested one approach in one of my previous emails. but I > actually don't think this is likely to be too much of an issue. I expect > that it is perfectly possible to talk about how people's contributions > ought to be recognized without mentioning "meritocracy" (as Rich hints wrt > the blog post). lots and lots of other open source projects and > organizations manage it perfectly well. we could start by looking at how > they do it > > I would focus on trying to communicate two things: > > (1) we want to build an organization that recognizes individual > contributions (with status, responsibility, and power) in a way that is > inclusive of skillset, backgrounds, cultures, race, gender, sexuality, etc, > etc > > (2) the technical details, i.e. how this happens. we already do this! our > bylaws, project bylaws, etc. but we could improve it with practical > tools/techniques/principals that can help us with inclusion, unconscious > bias, and so on > > > On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 15:45, Patricia Shanahan <p...@acm.org> wrote: > >> On 3/22/2019 6:56 AM, Shawn McKinney wrote: >> > >> >> On Mar 22, 2019, at 2:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> It would be very important to come up with a replacement that is >> >> as effective as what we're trying to replace. Frankly, I don't know >> >> a single candidate. >> >> >> >> Does anyone? >> > >> > Here are some, can’t say they carry the same level of clarity or weight. >> > >> > excellence, merit-based / merited, self-determination, deserving / >> deservingness, worthiness / being worthy of, getting one's due, be entitled >> / qualified to >> >> I suspect, without research data to back it up, that anything that >> implies that those with decision making power got there primarily >> through their own merit/deserts/worth etc. would have the same harmful >> effects as a claim to be a meritocracy. I prefer the direction that >> presents meritocracy as something towards which we can strive, but that >> has not been achieved and may never be fully achieved. Luck and having >> the right parents will go on being important. >> >> Patricia >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> https://www.avg.com >> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org >> >>
