> On Mar 28, 2019, at 8:00 AM, Naomi Slater <n...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 12:45, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
>
>> some people, "meritocracy" is a bad word, and I say I disagree.
>>
>> even when studies show that using that word *specifically* leads to less
> equitable organizations?
>
Because it has, IMHO, become an easy target.
>
>> "Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
>> or what genitalia one has or is attracted to. If your idea
>> of what constitutes merit is based on any of these, then
>> that's a f'ed up definition of merit. That means it's a
>> problem w/ how merit is defined, and not meritocracy per se."
>>
>
> *ideally*
All "-ocracies" and "-ologies" are ideals.
>
> but in practice, this isn't true. and our committer demographics
> demonstrate this
Then those PMCs have a f'ed up definition and measure of merit.
>
>
>> We reward
>> those actions and behaviors that help build and nurture a community.
>> Those are the actions and behaviors that gain one merit.
>>
>
> but we recognize and reward those actions and behaviors in a way that
> excludes people. in a way that privileges people who are already privileged
> (white men, etc, etc) and discriminates against the already marginalized
>
> i.e., the way we actually *do* this is, to borrow your phrase, "f*ed up"
Then we need to fix it and get back to basics.
FWIW, I disagree, wholeheartedly, with the phrase:
the already privileged SUCK at determining who deserves
"recognition of merit"
I think that is self-serving and a gross and crass generalization
that does not help in uniting anyone.
But we seem to be getting way off base here...
Cheers!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
