It is great to see that we want our outbound comms regarding this improved.
But what is worse is that, while there are these great talks about improving this here in comdev and foundation, the flaw remains at project level where people do get disregarded for receiving privileges because they don't fit the profile that individual PMC members have of the ideal privileged contributor, and vocalise that in such a way that when it comes to a vote it is a veto in all but the word. Not only do the outbound communication need to improve, but more importantly the oversight and policing needs to improve. Best regards, Pierre Smits *Apache Trafodion <https://trafodion.apache.org>, Vice President* *Apache Directory <https://directory.apache.org>, PMC Member* Apache Incubator <https://incubator.apache.org>, committer *Apache OFBiz <https://ofbiz.apache.org>, contributor (without having privileges) since 2008* Apache Steve <https://steve.apache.org>, committer On Tue, Mar 26, 2019 at 3:39 PM Naomi Slater <n...@tumbolia.org> wrote: > agreed with Sam > > we can't claim that race, gender, etc, "are not relevant" when overwhelming > evidence to the contrary exists. which means we can't just state our ideals > (inclusive, equitable, etc) without *also* explaining why our committer > base does not reflect this > > this is what I mean when I say I don't think that finding a replacement for > "meritocracy" is a good solution. because no matter what term we come up > with we have the same problem: our committer base won't reflect it > > I think it would be much more interesting if as some sort of "core value" > we were committed to the ongoing evaluation of our shortcomings wrt > inclusion, equity, and so on, and doing something about them > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 22:10, Griselda Cuevas <g...@google.com.invalid> > wrote: > > > I liked the three sentences Joan outlined, and overall the idea of > spelling > > out the things we value. > > > > Thank you! > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Mar 2019 at 06:39, Joan Touzet <woh...@apache.org> wrote: > > > > > I'm travelling and on holiday this week, but my $0.02: > > > > > > Stop trying to find a single word for what we mean. It's too subtle: > > > > > > > > When using the word 'Meritocracy', is is important to > > > > > explain on which merits the meritocracy is based : > > > > > -- community building > > > > > -- software construction > > > > > -- whatever > > > > > > > > This is the main issue, and one where the traditional ASF usage of > > > > "merit" is subtly different than the dictionary definition: > > > > > > If it's *so* important to us, break it out into two or three things. > > > > > > * "The people who do the work get to lead the work" > > > * "We remember and like people who do good work" > > > * "As time passes, your contributions don't devalue" > > > > > > etc. > > > > > > Yes, we're international, and we can tailor this message in other > > > languages as necessary. We shouldn't therefore justify use of a > > > word that has this many problems and this much baggage in English, > > > however. > > > > > > -Joan > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
