On Thu, 28 Mar 2019 at 13:14, Jim Jagielski <j...@jagunet.com> wrote:
> > > 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. > but this is true for all PMCs, and indeed our board. we have dismal representation for non men, non white people, etc, etc, across the whole organization. so you're saying that our whole organization has a f*ed up definition and measure of merit. which is precisely my point. and why I started this thread 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. > self-serving how? if you mean it serves the interests of women and other marginalized people at this organization, then yes, that is also precisely my point. this is what we should be doing it's uncomfortable to confront this fact. but it must be confronted. and appeals to "uniting people" (i.e. don't upset people or make them confront their biases or failures) is counter-productive and it won't have any sway with me additionally, how can you disagree with this characterization when (per our committer demographics) we have *demonstrably* failed to recognize merit in an equitable way > But we seem to be getting way off base here... > no, I would argue this is very much on topic
