Hi Naomi,

Thanks for (re)starting this discussion. I’ve come to agree that there are 
serious problems with the word “meritocracy”. Everyone and every culture brings 
their own ever evolving definition. I brought up the Incubator because 
mentoring new podlings currently includes teaching that the ASF is a 
meritocracy and often pushing these projects into actually having discussions 
about which contributors should be invited to be committers and/or PPMC 
members. They each achieve their own “bar” for this. Some are “higher" and some 
“lower”. The ones that set a higher bar may be projects that will never grow 
enough to be sustainable and diverse enough to withstand the natural attrition 
of the “volunteers” that are currently driving the project.

To me the “non-expiring merit” that should be identified by an Apache Project 
Community is those who show that they “care" and willingly, regularly make even 
small contributions to the community. This can be as “insignificant” (to those 
who set a high bar) as answering user questions with regularity. 

I don’t know if there is a single word for it, but I think we should be looking 
for those who willingly contribute in an Open, Sharing, Diverse, Inclusive, and 
Sustainable way. In many projects there have been moments when a Meritorious, 
High Energy, Driving person has become poisonous to that community and has 
needed to be driven away. This is never a fun process. A sustainable community 
that recognizes small contributions and grows volunteers can survive this. If 
not then the project is headed to the Attic or will be forked.

I agree with Rich that having this discussion with membership will encounter a 
fair amount of pushback (and filibustering in the 19th century sense of the 
word)

Regards,
Dave

> On Mar 22, 2019, at 10:06 AM, Naomi Slater <n...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> 
> agreed re "do-ocracy"
> 
> 1) like Patricia points out, like "meritocracy", it presupposes our past
> and future ability implement such a system
> 
> 2) even if we *have* been successful at implementing such a system, is that
> really enough for us, from an ideological perspective? are we not concerned
> with who *isn't* contributing, and why? what we can do about it, etc, etc
> 
> this is why I think it's important to separate this into to components: (a)
> a statement about what we want to achieve that explicitly acknowledges the
> potential for bias and discrimination, and (b) practical
> information/guidance that helps us work towards that
> 
> On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 17:59, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> 
>> On 3/22/19 3:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik 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.
>> 
>> As discussed elsewhere in the thread, simply coming up with a new word,
>> while potentially helpful in starting conversations, doesn't really
>> address the underlying problem. And each new word (do-ocracy is one that
>> has been proposed, for example) comes with its own set of concerns and
>> baggage.
>> 
>> We have had the "what other word can we use" conversation at least once
>> on this mailing list, and at least one on members, in the last 2 years.
>> Neither conversation resulted in anything actionable.
>> 
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com
>> http://rcbowen.com/
>> @rbowen
>> 
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
>> 
>> 


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org

Reply via email to