You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@community.apache.org by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> on 2019/03/20 09:49:21 UTC
on "meritocracy"
this article crossed my news feed today:
https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
here's a key takeaway:
> [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees
with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where
meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
many aspects of this piece mirror something I wrote for Model View Culture
a few years ago:
https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
namely, that "the meritocracy" is a status quo supporting, hierarchy
legitimizing myth used to justify people's existing social status and
treatment
I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache (this is
especially true in 2019 given what we know about the lack of diversity at
the ASF)
when I was writing about this in 2014, I was already a few years behind the
curve re discourse about culture and tech diversity. it's now 2019 and even
FastCompany is writing about it
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Kenneth Knowles <ke...@apache.org>.
Thanks for these links to interesting reading. These are topics I care
deeply about. I'd be very interested in related analyses around specific
forms or instances of open source governance.
Kenn
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:21 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> I read the article last week when it was doing the rounds, and I must
> admit I find it confusing. It appears to state that because we haven't
> yet achieved equity, we shouldn't bother striving for it. This seems
> false and harmful.
>
> I'm not aware of anybody (ok, fine, I am aware of one person) that
> thinks that Apache has arrived at meritocratic ideals. Rather, we strive
> towards them. If it's the *word* that's objectionable, sure, fine. But
> abandoning the *ideal* doesn't seem like a desired outcome.
>
> I acknowledge that I am the recipient of enormous luck and privilege. I
> certainly don't believe that I have arrived where I am in the world
> purely by hard work. And frankly, citing Stuart Varney as representative
> of ... well, anything or anyone, is, itself, kind of comic. He's a
> pompous blow-hard with a lengthy history of arrogant remarks about
> unsavory poor people who are not as wonderful as himself. I understand
> that these people exist, but citing them as representative seems weird.
>
> I would, however, ask what it is, specifically, that you're suggesting.
>
> On 3/20/19 5:49 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> > this article crossed my news feed today:
> >
> >
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
> >
> > here's a key takeaway:
> >
> >> [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
> > managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees
> > with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where
> > meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
> >
> > many aspects of this piece mirror something I wrote for Model View
> Culture
> > a few years ago:
> > https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
> >
> > namely, that "the meritocracy" is a status quo supporting, hierarchy
> > legitimizing myth used to justify people's existing social status and
> > treatment
> >
> > I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> > examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache (this is
> > especially true in 2019 given what we know about the lack of diversity at
> > the ASF)
> >
> > when I was writing about this in 2014, I was already a few years behind
> the
> > curve re discourse about culture and tech diversity. it's now 2019 and
> even
> > FastCompany is writing about it
> >
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
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 <no...@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 <pa...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi Rich,
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:39 PM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> ...I realized this morning that one of those changes may have stepped on
> Bertrand's toes, since he was the primary driver behind the Maturity
> Model prose, which is used in more than just this one place...
You mean by changing to "strives to be meritocratic" instead of "is
meritocratic" in CO40 at [1] ?
I have no problem with that - I tried to use active voice and simple
constructs in the original draft of that Maturity Model (which has
since been improved with contributions from great comdev people) but
didn't think hard about that nuance, so no worries about changing it.
Right now I see it says "is meritocratic" but if you want to change I
have no problem with that.
What might help is defining what meritocracy means to us. We already
have definitions or merit and meritocracy at
https://apache.org/foundation/glossary.html, maybe they need to be
tweaked with respect to recent changes in the perception of those
words.
-Bertrand
[1] https://community.apache.org/apache-way/apache-project-maturity-model.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 3/22/19 12:49 PM, Dave Fisher wrote:
> Hi Rich,
>
> I’m not sure if you included the Incubator in your analysis. We have mentions of meritoc on six pages along with references to foundation pages and links.
>
> The pages are:
>
> guides/proposal.html
> guides/graduation.html
> guides/community.html
> guides/ppmc.html
> index.html
> policy/incubation.html
I didn't, as that's not content that I've ever touched, so I don't have
a checkout of that.
>
> Please provide guidance on changes to the Incubator.
Yeah, that guidance is definitely something we should come up with. But
I don't think that's going to be something that we can just issue an
edict on without broader discussion - a broader discussion which will
probably involve the membership, and much vitriol. Not looking forward
to that.
But my initial guidance, at least coming out of this thread, would be
edits that reflect s/is a meritocracy/strives towards meritocratic
ideals/ or something like that.
>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> On 3/22/19 10:55 AM, Naomi Slater wrote many good and helpful things.
>>
>> Narrowing it down to the "action items":
>>
>>> 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
>>
>> This is something that we can do immediately, in small incremental
>> patches, as we find that content. I have, as mentioned, taken a first
>> (incomplete!) step to do this on community.apache.org
>>
>> I realized this morning that one of those changes may have stepped on
>> Bertrand's toes, since he was the primary driver behind the Maturity
>> Model prose, which is used in more than just this one place. We (I?)
>> need to connect with Bertrand to ensure that the change doesn't get
>> reverted in future iterations of that content.
>>
>> Meanwhile, anyone here can start looking through the 150 (ish?) places
>> on www.apache.org where the term meritocra(cy|tic) is used, and
>> determine whether it's valuable to enhance how that is phrased.
>>
>>> (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
>>
>> To which we should, as the Community Development PMC, push back and
>> insist that we're working towards the development of the community, as
>> per our charter, and that the changes are NOT about what was done in the
>> past, or a slight against who did it, but that they are intended to
>> welcome the next generation of our community, and build a strong tomorrow.
>>
>> Whatever we have done wrong in the past, I feel like it's really
>> important to focus on the future. I mean, it's *useful*, as Naomi has
>> said, to understand the past, I don't know about y'all, but all I have
>> time for is the future.
>>
>> As was illustrated brilliantly when Sharan did the community survey a
>> couple of years ago, the people who complained that it was a waste of
>> time did not, in the long run, have any right to tell us not to waste
>> our time in that way. And good came from it.
>>
>> The "small incremental changes" model applies.
>>
>> --
>> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>> http://rcbowen.com/
>> @rbowen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
Hi Rich,
I’m not sure if you included the Incubator in your analysis. We have mentions of meritoc on six pages along with references to foundation pages and links.
The pages are:
guides/proposal.html
guides/graduation.html
guides/community.html
guides/ppmc.html
index.html
policy/incubation.html
Please provide guidance on changes to the Incubator.
Regards,
Dave
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 8:29 AM, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> On 3/22/19 10:55 AM, Naomi Slater wrote many good and helpful things.
>
> Narrowing it down to the "action items":
>
>> 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
>
> This is something that we can do immediately, in small incremental
> patches, as we find that content. I have, as mentioned, taken a first
> (incomplete!) step to do this on community.apache.org
>
> I realized this morning that one of those changes may have stepped on
> Bertrand's toes, since he was the primary driver behind the Maturity
> Model prose, which is used in more than just this one place. We (I?)
> need to connect with Bertrand to ensure that the change doesn't get
> reverted in future iterations of that content.
>
> Meanwhile, anyone here can start looking through the 150 (ish?) places
> on www.apache.org where the term meritocra(cy|tic) is used, and
> determine whether it's valuable to enhance how that is phrased.
>
>> (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
>
> To which we should, as the Community Development PMC, push back and
> insist that we're working towards the development of the community, as
> per our charter, and that the changes are NOT about what was done in the
> past, or a slight against who did it, but that they are intended to
> welcome the next generation of our community, and build a strong tomorrow.
>
> Whatever we have done wrong in the past, I feel like it's really
> important to focus on the future. I mean, it's *useful*, as Naomi has
> said, to understand the past, I don't know about y'all, but all I have
> time for is the future.
>
> As was illustrated brilliantly when Sharan did the community survey a
> couple of years ago, the people who complained that it was a waste of
> time did not, in the long run, have any right to tell us not to waste
> our time in that way. And good came from it.
>
> The "small incremental changes" model applies.
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 3/22/19 10:55 AM, Naomi Slater wrote many good and helpful things.
Narrowing it down to the "action items":
> 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
This is something that we can do immediately, in small incremental
patches, as we find that content. I have, as mentioned, taken a first
(incomplete!) step to do this on community.apache.org
I realized this morning that one of those changes may have stepped on
Bertrand's toes, since he was the primary driver behind the Maturity
Model prose, which is used in more than just this one place. We (I?)
need to connect with Bertrand to ensure that the change doesn't get
reverted in future iterations of that content.
Meanwhile, anyone here can start looking through the 150 (ish?) places
on www.apache.org where the term meritocra(cy|tic) is used, and
determine whether it's valuable to enhance how that is phrased.
> (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
To which we should, as the Community Development PMC, push back and
insist that we're working towards the development of the community, as
per our charter, and that the changes are NOT about what was done in the
past, or a slight against who did it, but that they are intended to
welcome the next generation of our community, and build a strong tomorrow.
Whatever we have done wrong in the past, I feel like it's really
important to focus on the future. I mean, it's *useful*, as Naomi has
said, to understand the past, I don't know about y'all, but all I have
time for is the future.
As was illustrated brilliantly when Sharan did the community survey a
couple of years ago, the people who complained that it was a waste of
time did not, in the long run, have any right to tell us not to waste
our time in that way. And good came from it.
The "small incremental changes" model applies.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
"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 <pa...@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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Patricia Shanahan <pa...@acm.org>.
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-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Shawn McKinney <sm...@icloud.com.INVALID>.
> 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
—Shawn
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Alex Harui <ah...@adobe.com.INVALID>.
On 3/22/19, 12:04 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?
Do-ocracy - I think we've used this word before to describe the ASF. Seems to have definitions in the Urban Dictionary.
Action-ocracy - This might be a new word and thus we can define it to be what we want it to be.
HTH,
-Alex
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Isabel Drost-Fromm <is...@apache.org>.
Am 24. März 2019 01:44:49 MEZ schrieb Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.me>:
> See a merit deserving action - call it out with a thank
>you.
I like this point, though what I observe is that this is often forgotten.
> If you have the patience I'll illustrate this with a story,
Thank you for sharing that story, to me it was a great illustration on how metrics alone can be gamed and turned unhelpful/ hurting their very purpose.
> In my opinion the best way to do this
>is to have the lowest possible bar. Having an artificially high bar is
>the real problem for lack of recognition. With a low bar one only needs
>to see a relatively low amount of contribution.
While that does work I can't help but feel reminded of
https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/1*a8Zr3KWAXMif63uL1zkWLg.png
https://medium.com/@CRA1G/the-evolution-of-an-accidental-meme-ddc4e139e0e4 and. http://interactioninstitute.org/illustrating-equality-vs-equity/ might be more stable, but I really think the image linked directly to above (the one changing dynamics by building a fence you can look through or removing the fence) captures our possibilities better than the original. And no, I have no clear cut solution that we can deploy, I do believe we have people here that can help create such solutions and patterns. Lowering the bar likely is one good pattern. Praising in public is another one. Focusing on mentoring ppl in might be another one. Keeping all communication in list is another one. Tagging communication to make it easier to deal with load might be one. .... I wonder what else can be done and when we should apply which pattern with what expected outcome.
>
>[If you are interested in the outcome of the above story... I asked the
>"struggling" manager why he didn't tell the lead what was happening. I
>never got a good answer. The outcome was that the lead fired the
>questionable manager, helped the other manager understand that she
>always needed to know when the process is broken and promoted him.
Talking to your people, doing some user research on what makes ppl stick with us and what makes them leave sounds like a good starting point. Also in our case. And likely in addition to processes and metrics.
Isabel
--
Diese Nachricht wurde von meinem Android-Gerät mit K-9 Mail gesendet.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Ross Gardler <ro...@gardler.me>.
No additional comment from me on the word choice. I do agree meritocracy is problematic given increasingly popular views on the model in other places - I've always been careful to warn that the difference between a meritocracy and a oligarchy is minimal. Which brings me to the recognition of merit.
I am never a fan of tools to solve a social problems. Tools do not bring visibility, they bring an opportunity to play the system. People shoulf take responsibility and actively demonstrate the way things should work. See a merit deserving action - call it out with a thank you. If you have the patience I'll illustrate this with a story, but feel free to stop reading now as I've made my point about tooling being potentially damaging.
Years ago I was brought into a client to help them understand why things were failing for them with respect to customer satisfaction. They were hitting all their support metrics, such as mean time to resolution, but their CSAT scores remained low. Their engineering teams were becoming worried that despite a genuine focus on customer needs they seemed to be building something people didn't like.
I was brought in as a consultant. I ignored the data they handed to me on day one. It came from the tools. I already knew that data was wrong since it told me they were meeting targets and their targets were good ones. I started talking to people about what they did to contribute to improving CSAT. I quickly found that engineering had a good process for prioritizing work that support tooling highlighted as problem areas. I found marketing were accurately representing current and future features. The sales teams were not over selling the product features. Support were picking up tickets and triaging them according to their best practice. I was baffled.
So I went to the tools, despite my lack of trust in their data. I started with the customer support cases. It looked like every other data set I'd seen before. A few tickets took a long time to resolve but they had good attention from product, engineering and support, while most tickets were resolved fairly quickly. I ran queries on the raw data, rather than relying on the roll-up queries the tool provided. That's when I saw it. There was one particular team (they worked on 3 x 8 shifts around the globe) who was killing it with respect to closing tickets in a timely way, and the team that followed was struggling. From the roll up data it looked like the second team struggled with hard tickets, though their performance on easier tickets was comparable. When I queried on these hard tickets alone I realized they had a tendency to re-open previously resolved tickets - and they were almost always hard ones.
I asked the support lead about these two teams. She told me that she had never managed to get the poorer team to really step up, there was no strong leader and while he and his team did good work, he just couldn't seem to hold his team together, new hires quickly quit or moved out of the support role. The better team was full of rockstars. She wasn't worried about hiring there because the manager just seemed to have a talent for finding the best. Her bigger worry there was having capacity to promote those people.
So I dug deeper. What I found was that the "better" team was led by a manager who played the system. He taught his team, for example, to close tickets as duplicates of newer tickets, even if they weren't related. The tool reported their resolution numbers as healthy, but they weren't really working with the customer. The team that followed picked up the newer tickets, recognized the "mistake", reopened the original and resolved both. The tool reported their numbers as poorer, but in reality they were doing way more work.
This is why the manager there couldn't hold his staff. They were fed up of correcting the bad work of others. As soon as they realized the others were getting promotions and their team was not they left.
The tools hid the truth. Only talking to people can truly recognize contribution. It is the responsibility of the people in the community to cultivate and recognize merit. In my opinion the best way to do this is to have the lowest possible bar. Having an artificially high bar is the real problem for lack of recognition. With a low bar one only needs to see a relatively low amount of contribution.
[If you are interested in the outcome of the above story... I asked the "struggling" manager why he didn't tell the lead what was happening. I never got a good answer. The outcome was that the lead fired the questionable manager, helped the other manager understand that she always needed to know when the process is broken and promoted him. She also put them in charge of training and process refinement across all three sites. Six months later they could see a very marked difference in their Customer Sat scores.]
________________________________________
From: Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID>
Sent: Saturday, March 23, 2019 10:23 AM
To: dev@community.apache.org
Subject: Re: on "meritocracy"
Hi Everyone, I read this thread and got a few comments according to how
well I was able to track all statements and arguments. English is not my
first language and it was hard for me to keep track of the current state of
this discussion. Complicated words and sentence structure were used to
state points by authors here, to the point I was almost giving up
commenting.
In any case, as Naomi stated, I don't want to muddy the waters, just wanted
to exemplify why we often hear from specific people in certain mailing
lists/projects, making it hard for us to truly follow a meritocracy model.
I extracted 2 main convos
1) Choose a better term to use instead of meritocracy.
2) improve the way Apache projects and the foundation recognize project
collaboration.
For 1) I personally think the word meritocracy isn't the problem. If you
translate it to Spanish, the word is fair and adecuate to describe the
governance model the foundation follows. I believe the problem is that the
concept of merit awarding is broken and often related to Bias from the
group assigning the merit. This said, according to the article, I
understand that the problem is that the core group of an organization
awarding contributions would be Bias and therefore will perpetuate unfair
development. My conclusion is that, the word isn't the problem, the problem
is in the system.
This being said, I have no preference in wether we should change it or not.
Since Rich, Bertrand and others are putting efforts into defining better
the language, I support that with no opossition.
2) From my personal experience supporting projects under the Apache model,
I can say that the difficulty in assigning fair and unbiased merit to
people in the community comes from lack of process and tools. For example,
in Apache Beam, we've been working on several advocacy effort which have
helped the project's brand grow, and surface areas of improvement for the
tech. However, the PMC committee doesn't have full visibility in how much
effort comes from each individual, since only one representative sits with
us during planning meetings. On the other hand, when I talk to other PMC
members about possible new committers, I hear names of people I don't know
because I don't interact with their part of the project, making me think
that it's unfair others get recognized over people organizing Summits or
community efforts.
We are in the middle of defining a better process to bring visibility of
efforts to everyone in the project and make the committership process more
fair and transparent.
This aligns with the efforts Sally recently posted on non-code contribution
recognition and I think solving this should support Naomi's original
statement: meritocracy will beging to "work" and diversity will start to
flourish.
Happy to help build better practices and processes to make fair recognition
and diversity win.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Griselda Cuevas <gr...@google.com.INVALID>.
Hi Everyone, I read this thread and got a few comments according to how
well I was able to track all statements and arguments. English is not my
first language and it was hard for me to keep track of the current state of
this discussion. Complicated words and sentence structure were used to
state points by authors here, to the point I was almost giving up
commenting.
In any case, as Naomi stated, I don't want to muddy the waters, just wanted
to exemplify why we often hear from specific people in certain mailing
lists/projects, making it hard for us to truly follow a meritocracy model.
I extracted 2 main convos
1) Choose a better term to use instead of meritocracy.
2) improve the way Apache projects and the foundation recognize project
collaboration.
For 1) I personally think the word meritocracy isn't the problem. If you
translate it to Spanish, the word is fair and adecuate to describe the
governance model the foundation follows. I believe the problem is that the
concept of merit awarding is broken and often related to Bias from the
group assigning the merit. This said, according to the article, I
understand that the problem is that the core group of an organization
awarding contributions would be Bias and therefore will perpetuate unfair
development. My conclusion is that, the word isn't the problem, the problem
is in the system.
This being said, I have no preference in wether we should change it or not.
Since Rich, Bertrand and others are putting efforts into defining better
the language, I support that with no opossition.
2) From my personal experience supporting projects under the Apache model,
I can say that the difficulty in assigning fair and unbiased merit to
people in the community comes from lack of process and tools. For example,
in Apache Beam, we've been working on several advocacy effort which have
helped the project's brand grow, and surface areas of improvement for the
tech. However, the PMC committee doesn't have full visibility in how much
effort comes from each individual, since only one representative sits with
us during planning meetings. On the other hand, when I talk to other PMC
members about possible new committers, I hear names of people I don't know
because I don't interact with their part of the project, making me think
that it's unfair others get recognized over people organizing Summits or
community efforts.
We are in the middle of defining a better process to bring visibility of
efforts to everyone in the project and make the committership process more
fair and transparent.
This aligns with the efforts Sally recently posted on non-code contribution
recognition and I think solving this should support Naomi's original
statement: meritocracy will beging to "work" and diversity will start to
flourish.
Happy to help build better practices and processes to make fair recognition
and diversity win.
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
the Apache Software Foundation was started in 1999. that makes it 20 years
old. in 2016, our committer survey indicated that women make up 5.2% of our
committer base. Black people make up 0.1% (one single person who responded
to the survey)
I think it's about time to admit defeat and try something else
if we want to strive for an inclusive, equitable organization, the
literature (see the first article I linked to) tells us that embracing
"meritocracy" as a core value works against that goal
On Sat, 23 Mar 2019 at 01:46, Dinesh Joshi <di...@yahoo.com.invalid>
wrote:
> Striving for an ideal is good. Doing away with it entirely feels like
> giving up on it and admitting defeat.
>
> Dinesh
>
> > On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> >
> > I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
> > entirely
> >
> >> On Fri 22. Mar 2019 at 21:28, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@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.
> >>
> >> FWIW: the only word I can 100% embrace as a wholesale replacement
> >> of meritocracy is do-ocracy.
> >>
> >>> 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.
> >>
> >> That's basically my point.
> >>
> >> Thanks,
> >> Roman.
> >>
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >>
> >>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Dinesh Joshi <di...@yahoo.com.INVALID>.
Striving for an ideal is good. Doing away with it entirely feels like giving up on it and admitting defeat.
Dinesh
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:24 PM, Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
> entirely
>
>> On Fri 22. Mar 2019 at 21:28, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@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.
>>
>> FWIW: the only word I can 100% embrace as a wholesale replacement
>> of meritocracy is do-ocracy.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> That's basically my point.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Roman.
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Sam Ruby <ru...@intertwingly.net>.
I fear that we have lost the original point made my Naomi.
In other circles, I have found people openly mocking the ASF as a
"mirror-tocracy" where we recognize merit only in people that look
like us. Whether we agree with that or not, we have to accept that
that is a perception held by a non-trivial percent of the population.
If we truly were blind to sexuality, race, gender, age, etc., then one
would expect our ratios on these measurements to match the general
population, or at least industry norms. Sadly, this is not the case.
I am concerned that stressing the "negatives" would be seen as
incredibly tone deaf.
- Sam Ruby
On Mon, Mar 25, 2019 at 10:09 AM Henk P. Penning <pe...@uu.nl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Shane Curcuru wrote:
>
> > Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:00:20 +0000
> > From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> > To: dev@community.apache.org
> > Subject: Re: on "meritocracy"
> >
> > Henk P. Penning wrote on 3/24/19 1:29 PM:
> > ...snip...
> >> When using the word 'Meritocracy', is is important to
> >> explain on which merits the meritocracy is based :
> >> -- community building
> >> -- software construction
> >> -- whatever
>
> Most definitions of 'Meritocracy' also mention the 'merits'
> that are /NOT/ important ; like sexuality, race, gender, age,
> or wealth ; also 'education', 'social status', 'achievements
> outside ASF' [pardon my English] etc.
>
> These 'negatives' are as important as the 'positives',
> when we define what our 'meritocracy' is.
>
> -- Perhaps these negatives could added (more) upfront in
> http://theapacheway.com/merit/
>
> Groeten,
>
> Henk Penning
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------ _
> Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
> Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
> Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
> http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
>
> > This is the main issue, and one where the traditional ASF usage of
> > "merit" is subtly different than the dictionary definition:
> >
> > https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/merit
> >
> > The ASF meaning of "merit*" is about work done, not characteristics:
> >
> > "Within the Apache Way, 'your merit' is always about the work you do,
> > and never about you as an individual. Many newcomers see this at odds
> > with common conceptions of someone’s merit meaning their character,
> > their behaviors, their abilities, and past actions."
> >
> > http://theapacheway.com/merit/
> >
> > I agree we need to improve our public presence to better explain "how we
> > value contributions" (i.e. our meritocracy meaning), since the commonly
> > understood definition out in the world is different from this. But my
> > brain is really tired this month about real life, and the best word I
> > can come up with is "work-ocracy". which is pretty clumsy. 8-)
> >
> > --
> >
> > - Shane
> > Director & Member
> > The Apache Software Foundation
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Mon, 25 Mar 2019, Shane Curcuru wrote:
> Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2019 12:00:20 +0000
> From: Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Subject: Re: on "meritocracy"
>
> Henk P. Penning wrote on 3/24/19 1:29 PM:
> ...snip...
>> � When using the word 'Meritocracy', is is important to
>> � explain on which merits the meritocracy is based :
>> � -- community building
>> � -- software construction
>> � -- whatever
Most definitions of 'Meritocracy' also mention the 'merits'
that are /NOT/ important ; like sexuality, race, gender, age,
or wealth ; also 'education', 'social status', 'achievements
outside ASF' [pardon my English] etc.
These 'negatives' are as important as the 'positives',
when we define what our 'meritocracy' is.
-- Perhaps these negatives could added (more) upfront in
http://theapacheway.com/merit/
Groeten,
Henk Penning
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
> This is the main issue, and one where the traditional ASF usage of
> "merit" is subtly different than the dictionary definition:
>
> https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/merit
>
> The ASF meaning of "merit*" is about work done, not characteristics:
>
> "Within the Apache Way, 'your merit' is always about the work you do,
> and never about you as an individual. Many newcomers see this at odds
> with common conceptions of someone�s merit meaning their character,
> their behaviors, their abilities, and past actions."
>
> http://theapacheway.com/merit/
>
> I agree we need to improve our public presence to better explain "how we
> value contributions" (i.e. our meritocracy meaning), since the commonly
> understood definition out in the world is different from this. But my
> brain is really tired this month about real life, and the best word I
> can come up with is "work-ocracy". which is pretty clumsy. 8-)
>
> --
>
> - Shane
> Director & Member
> The Apache Software Foundation
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Shane Curcuru <as...@shanecurcuru.org>.
Henk P. Penning wrote on 3/24/19 1:29 PM:
...snip...
> 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:
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/merit
The ASF meaning of "merit*" is about work done, not characteristics:
"Within the Apache Way, 'your merit' is always about the work you do,
and never about you as an individual. Many newcomers see this at odds
with common conceptions of someone’s merit meaning their character,
their behaviors, their abilities, and past actions."
http://theapacheway.com/merit/
I agree we need to improve our public presence to better explain "how we
value contributions" (i.e. our meritocracy meaning), since the commonly
understood definition out in the world is different from this. But my
brain is really tired this month about real life, and the best word I
can come up with is "work-ocracy". which is pretty clumsy. 8-)
--
- Shane
Director & Member
The Apache Software Foundation
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by "Henk P. Penning" <pe...@uu.nl>.
On Sun, 24 Mar 2019, Craig Russell wrote:
> Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2019 14:51:59 +0000
> From: Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@community.apache.org
> Cc: Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>
> Subject: Re: on "meritocracy"
>
> To me, meritocracy was always a force-fit to describe what we strive for.
>
> The terms with -ocracy all have the intended effect of invoking a
> top-down rule system of governance. I reject all such descriptions of
> how Apache works.
>
> How about just "merit-based" as a guiding principle. We don't have
> -ocracy at all. We strive for merit-based governance.
Our audience is very international ; for many readers
English is a second language.
'Meritocracy' has 50+ language references in wikipedia,
so the concept can be understood by almost everyone.
When using the word 'Meritocracy', is is important to
explain on which merits the meritocracy is based :
-- community building
-- software construction
-- whatever
With that in mind, 'Meritocracy' is better than some
vague euphemism.
Henk Penning
> Craig
>
>> On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> On 3/22/2019 7:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>>> I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
>>>> entirely
>>> I still would like to have a succinct handle to reference the ethos of ASF.
>>
>>
>> From my experience, there are words that are landmines in open source:
>> free and meritocracy happen to be such words without question.
>>
>> Switching meritocracy to do-ocracy might be a good way to handle it and
>> I know that's what other orgs like LF have done. However, we are
>> straddling the middle of having both principles of duopolies like JFDI
>> and elections with the necessary hierarchy for fiscal / corporate
>> oversight. That means the definition of do-ocracy doesn't fit. I
>> usually do mention the issues like a meritocracy often morphs into a
>> dictatorship and that people can amass too much merit that it's viewed
>> as harmful. I see that when I mention my $0.02 sometimes and it's taken
>> with more weight than I intend.
>>
>> So like Roman, I've been search for a word or a succinct handle to refer
>> to it. I don't have an answer but agree that do-ocracy and meritocracy
>> don't work well.
>>
>> I usually say all the things we aren't in my Yet Another The Apache Way
>> talk (TATAW per Daniel Ruggeri). I think I'll start saying we aren't a
>> meritocracy OR a do-ocracy/duopoly either but it's the closest thing I
>> know of.
>>
>> I don't like the idea of NOT saying what we are so do you have
>> suggestion of what word you think fits?
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> KAM
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>
> Craig L Russell
> Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
> clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>
>
------------------------------------------------------------ _
Henk P. Penning, ICT-beta R Uithof MG-403 _/ \_
Faculty of Science, Utrecht University T +31 30 253 4106 / \_/ \
Leuvenlaan 4, 3584CE Utrecht, NL F +31 30 253 4553 \_/ \_/
http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~penni101/ M penning@uu.nl \_/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Craig Russell <ap...@gmail.com>.
To me, meritocracy was always a force-fit to describe what we strive for.
The terms with -ocracy all have the intended effect of invoking a top-down rule system of governance. I reject all such descriptions of how Apache works.
How about just "merit-based" as a guiding principle. We don't have -ocracy at all. We strive for merit-based governance.
Craig
> On Mar 22, 2019, at 4:47 PM, Kevin A. McGrail <km...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 3/22/2019 7:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>>> I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
>>> entirely
>> I still would like to have a succinct handle to reference the ethos of ASF.
>
>
> From my experience, there are words that are landmines in open source:
> free and meritocracy happen to be such words without question.
>
> Switching meritocracy to do-ocracy might be a good way to handle it and
> I know that's what other orgs like LF have done. However, we are
> straddling the middle of having both principles of duopolies like JFDI
> and elections with the necessary hierarchy for fiscal / corporate
> oversight. That means the definition of do-ocracy doesn't fit. I
> usually do mention the issues like a meritocracy often morphs into a
> dictatorship and that people can amass too much merit that it's viewed
> as harmful. I see that when I mention my $0.02 sometimes and it's taken
> with more weight than I intend.
>
> So like Roman, I've been search for a word or a succinct handle to refer
> to it. I don't have an answer but agree that do-ocracy and meritocracy
> don't work well.
>
> I usually say all the things we aren't in my Yet Another The Apache Way
> talk (TATAW per Daniel Ruggeri). I think I'll start saying we aren't a
> meritocracy OR a do-ocracy/duopoly either but it's the closest thing I
> know of.
>
> I don't like the idea of NOT saying what we are so do you have
> suggestion of what word you think fits?
>
>
> Regards,
> KAM
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
Craig L Russell
Secretary, Apache Software Foundation
clr@apache.org <ma...@apache.org> http://db.apache.org/jdo <http://db.apache.org/jdo>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by "Kevin A. McGrail" <km...@apache.org>.
On 3/22/2019 7:28 PM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
>> entirely
> I still would like to have a succinct handle to reference the ethos of ASF.
From my experience, there are words that are landmines in open source:
free and meritocracy happen to be such words without question.
Switching meritocracy to do-ocracy might be a good way to handle it and
I know that's what other orgs like LF have done. However, we are
straddling the middle of having both principles of duopolies like JFDI
and elections with the necessary hierarchy for fiscal / corporate
oversight. That means the definition of do-ocracy doesn't fit. I
usually do mention the issues like a meritocracy often morphs into a
dictatorship and that people can amass too much merit that it's viewed
as harmful. I see that when I mention my $0.02 sometimes and it's taken
with more weight than I intend.
So like Roman, I've been search for a word or a succinct handle to refer
to it. I don't have an answer but agree that do-ocracy and meritocracy
don't work well.
I usually say all the things we aren't in my Yet Another The Apache Way
talk (TATAW per Daniel Ruggeri). I think I'll start saying we aren't a
meritocracy OR a do-ocracy/duopoly either but it's the closest thing I
know of.
I don't like the idea of NOT saying what we are so do you have
suggestion of what word you think fits?
Regards,
KAM
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 4:25 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>
> I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
> entirely
I still would like to have a succinct handle to reference the ethos of ASF.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
I suspect the answer is not to replace the word but to do away with it
entirely
On Fri 22. Mar 2019 at 21:28, Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@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.
>
> FWIW: the only word I can 100% embrace as a wholesale replacement
> of meritocracy is do-ocracy.
>
> > 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.
>
> That's basically my point.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Fri, Mar 22, 2019 at 9:59 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@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.
FWIW: the only word I can 100% embrace as a wholesale replacement
of meritocracy is do-ocracy.
> 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.
That's basically my point.
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Dave Fisher <da...@comcast.net>.
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 <no...@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 <rb...@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 - rbowen@rcbowen.com
>> http://rcbowen.com/
>> @rbowen
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>>
>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
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 <rb...@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 - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
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 - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Roman Shaposhnik <ro...@shaposhnik.org>.
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> On 3/21/19 1:15 PM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> >
> > I feel like this is a good opportunity to bring up (as I have brought up
> > before) the fact that "meritocracy" was invented for the purposes of a
> > satirical *dystopian* novel.
>
> Well, maybe. I kind of find that entire line of conversation to be just
> an amusing sidebar, and not really relevant. But, then, this is a
> favorite topic of debate with my linguist brother - the descriptive vs
> prescriptive nature of definitions. :)
>
> 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.
>
> I have a similar reaction to people who try to justify current
> political policies by referencing the historical origin of their
> opponent's political party.
>
> What's relevant is now.
>
> Many, many words that we rely on daily have contradictory origin
> stories. "Awful" and "Terrible" are instructive examples.
>
> > I *think* that on this particular mailing list, you're preaching to the
> > choir. And that choir is notably much more diverse than the ASF at
> > large. The challenge is spreading this story to the larger congregation.
> > Particularly when certain vocal members of that congregation speak very
> > loudly against those efforts as being wasteful of time and volunteer
> > effort.
> >
> >
> > but in your first email, re people getting offended, you said:
> >
> > "I understand that these people exist, but citing them as representative
> > seems weird."
>
> Specifically, there, I'm talking about Stuart Varney, who is a nasty,
> horrible person, and isn't representative of anyone here at the
> Foundation, even the most horrible nasty person here.
>
> Crafting our message for the small number of horrible people seems less
> effective than crafting it for the large number of
> well-intentioned-but-passive people, well-intentioned-but-unaware
> people, and well-intentioned-but-unaffected-due-to-their-privilege people.
>
> I firmly believe that most of the people here at the Foundation
> genuinely want to do the right thing. That we haven't done the right
> thing is not, for the most part, due to a malicious intention to do the
> wrong thing. I try, really hard, to assume good intent when crafting
> messages. If we assume everyone is Stuart Varney, we'll end up with
> messaging that will offend everyone and inform nobody.
>
> > my experience attempting to bring this sort of thing "to the
> > congregation" (i.e., members@) in the past is *the primary reason* I
> > burnt out and took hiatus for as long as I did. it was extremely
> > exhausting. being challenged by multiple people on every little point.
> > being drawn into long, circular, unproductive, and hostile arguments.
> > having to manage other people's emotions/outrage/flames
> >
> > traumatizing too, to be honest
> >
> > it is ironic (and bitterly unfair) that this sort of work often has to
> > be done by the people who have a material stake in what is being
> > dismissed and who are already exhausted/traumatized from all the times
> > they've had these sorts of conflicts before
>
> Yes, agreed. Also ironic is how some of us who desperately want to help
> are often unable to do so, because, as a white, middle aged, bearded,
> financially successful man, I'm a large part of the problem, and so my
> voice doesn't carry nearly the weight of yours.
>
> > I don't know what to do, to be honest. I don't have the emotional or
> > psychological health required to butt heads on members@ anymore
>
> I am willing to take on that fight, whenever and however I can. I often
> feel that I'm trying to mop up the sea with a paper towel. And these
> discussions in Apache-land are pretty consistently LESS hostile than in
> other communities I'm part of.
>
> > perhaps a good first step would be to update the material the ComDev
> > project is responsible for? phase out the word "meritocracy" (and maybe
> > add a note that acknowledges this change and gives a rationale). reframe
> > our values and approach as per my last email. from there, we could move
> > on to http://theapacheway.com/ (if Shane is up for it) and then the
> > Apache website proper, Incubator, etc. let it percolate through
>
> +1 to phasing out the word. -0 to providing a rationale for doing so, as
> it would seem to be a distraction, and picking a fight. Rather, finding
> the right/best phrasing, and moving to it, without necessarily drawing
> attention to the change, seems like a way to avoid pointless pushback
> from our Usual Suspects that tend to poop on any attempt to balance our
> community diversity.
>
> FWIW:
>
> [rbowen@sasha:comdev/site]$ grep -ri meritocracy | wc -l
> 4
>
> So, that one's easy ...
>
>
> [rbowen@sasha:apache/www-site]$ grep -ri meritocracy ./ | wc -l
> 150
>
> Somewhat more challenging, and would require considerable cooperation
> from Sally to ensure that we are in line with approved messaging.
Yup. Plus I'm still not sure what's being proposed as a replacement.
Putting aside my personal feeling about the *word* meritocracy, it is,
as labels go -- a very succinct one. This is very useful since it allows
us to label the ethos of ASF very efficiently (whether or not we're using
the label incorrectly is, to your point, more of a "origin of the word"
conversation -- at this point we appropriated it as far as I'm concerned).
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?
Thanks,
Roman.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
FYI, as you may have seen, I've made the following change in a couple of
places. I think it only goes part-way to solving the problem, but it
replaces "is" with "strives to be" in every place on
community.apache.org where this term occurs.
We can, of course, do more, but I didn't want to be random with it. I'd
like to come to an agreement as to what change, exactly, we wish to make.
This also ties in to the recent blog post -
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/the-apache-way-to-sustainable
- which, as you may note, doesn't use the term even once.
Anyways, I think we can, and should, start looking through the list of
150 on www.apache.org and seeing what changes should be made there.
[rbowen@sasha:content/apache-way]$ svn diff
(03-21 14:27)
Index: apache-project-maturity-model.mdtext
===================================================================
--- apache-project-maturity-model.mdtext (revision 1856006)
+++ apache-project-maturity-model.mdtext (working copy)
@@ -179,7 +179,7 @@
<dt id="CO40">CO40</dt>
<dd>
-The community is meritocratic and over time aims to give more rights and
+The community strives to be meritocratic and over time aims to give
more rights and
responsibilities to contributors who add value to the project.
</dd>
On 3/21/19 2:26 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> A few more hits on 'meritoc' since we use "meritocratic" some places.
>
>
> On 3/21/19 1:53 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
>> FWIW:
>>
>> [rbowen@sasha:comdev/site]$ grep -ri meritocracy | wc -l
>> 4
>>
>> So, that one's easy ...
>>
>>
>> [rbowen@sasha:apache/www-site]$ grep -ri meritocracy ./ | wc -l
>> 150
>>
>> Somewhat more challenging, and would require considerable cooperation
>> from Sally to ensure that we are in line with approved messaging.
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
A few more hits on 'meritoc' since we use "meritocratic" some places.
On 3/21/19 1:53 PM, Rich Bowen wrote:
> FWIW:
>
> [rbowen@sasha:comdev/site]$ grep -ri meritocracy | wc -l
> 4
>
> So, that one's easy ...
>
>
> [rbowen@sasha:apache/www-site]$ grep -ri meritocracy ./ | wc -l
> 150
>
> Somewhat more challenging, and would require considerable cooperation
> from Sally to ensure that we are in line with approved messaging.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 3/21/19 1:15 PM, Naomi Slater wrote:
>
> I feel like this is a good opportunity to bring up (as I have brought up
> before) the fact that "meritocracy" was invented for the purposes of a
> satirical *dystopian* novel.
Well, maybe. I kind of find that entire line of conversation to be just
an amusing sidebar, and not really relevant. But, then, this is a
favorite topic of debate with my linguist brother - the descriptive vs
prescriptive nature of definitions. :)
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.
I have a similar reaction to people who try to justify current
political policies by referencing the historical origin of their
opponent's political party.
What's relevant is now.
Many, many words that we rely on daily have contradictory origin
stories. "Awful" and "Terrible" are instructive examples.
> I *think* that on this particular mailing list, you're preaching to the
> choir. And that choir is notably much more diverse than the ASF at
> large. The challenge is spreading this story to the larger congregation.
> Particularly when certain vocal members of that congregation speak very
> loudly against those efforts as being wasteful of time and volunteer
> effort.
>
>
> but in your first email, re people getting offended, you said:
>
> "I understand that these people exist, but citing them as representative
> seems weird."
Specifically, there, I'm talking about Stuart Varney, who is a nasty,
horrible person, and isn't representative of anyone here at the
Foundation, even the most horrible nasty person here.
Crafting our message for the small number of horrible people seems less
effective than crafting it for the large number of
well-intentioned-but-passive people, well-intentioned-but-unaware
people, and well-intentioned-but-unaffected-due-to-their-privilege people.
I firmly believe that most of the people here at the Foundation
genuinely want to do the right thing. That we haven't done the right
thing is not, for the most part, due to a malicious intention to do the
wrong thing. I try, really hard, to assume good intent when crafting
messages. If we assume everyone is Stuart Varney, we'll end up with
messaging that will offend everyone and inform nobody.
> my experience attempting to bring this sort of thing "to the
> congregation" (i.e., members@) in the past is *the primary reason* I
> burnt out and took hiatus for as long as I did. it was extremely
> exhausting. being challenged by multiple people on every little point.
> being drawn into long, circular, unproductive, and hostile arguments.
> having to manage other people's emotions/outrage/flames
>
> traumatizing too, to be honest
>
> it is ironic (and bitterly unfair) that this sort of work often has to
> be done by the people who have a material stake in what is being
> dismissed and who are already exhausted/traumatized from all the times
> they've had these sorts of conflicts before
Yes, agreed. Also ironic is how some of us who desperately want to help
are often unable to do so, because, as a white, middle aged, bearded,
financially successful man, I'm a large part of the problem, and so my
voice doesn't carry nearly the weight of yours.
> I don't know what to do, to be honest. I don't have the emotional or
> psychological health required to butt heads on members@ anymore
I am willing to take on that fight, whenever and however I can. I often
feel that I'm trying to mop up the sea with a paper towel. And these
discussions in Apache-land are pretty consistently LESS hostile than in
other communities I'm part of.
> perhaps a good first step would be to update the material the ComDev
> project is responsible for? phase out the word "meritocracy" (and maybe
> add a note that acknowledges this change and gives a rationale). reframe
> our values and approach as per my last email. from there, we could move
> on to http://theapacheway.com/ (if Shane is up for it) and then the
> Apache website proper, Incubator, etc. let it percolate through
+1 to phasing out the word. -0 to providing a rationale for doing so, as
it would seem to be a distraction, and picking a fight. Rather, finding
the right/best phrasing, and moving to it, without necessarily drawing
attention to the change, seems like a way to avoid pointless pushback
from our Usual Suspects that tend to poop on any attempt to balance our
community diversity.
FWIW:
[rbowen@sasha:comdev/site]$ grep -ri meritocracy | wc -l
4
So, that one's easy ...
[rbowen@sasha:apache/www-site]$ grep -ri meritocracy ./ | wc -l
150
Somewhat more challenging, and would require considerable cooperation
from Sally to ensure that we are in line with approved messaging.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:04, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> As alluded to, I am aware of people in our community who believe that we
> have achieved this goal, and that any inference to the contrary is
> crazy-making. I explicitly disagree with that stance. We have clearly
> *not* achieved this goal, and I was laboring under the assumption that
> this was known, to most of us.
>
> https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/it-is-known-gif-13.gif
I feel like this is a good opportunity to bring up (as I have brought up
before) the fact that "meritocracy" was invented for the purposes of a
satirical *dystopian* novel. in the novel, the moral lesson is that any
attempt to build a meritocracy is doomed to failure because it presupposes
that the people with power and status can be relied upon to fairly judge
who ought to have power and status
see https://kottke.org/17/03/the-satirical-origins-of-the-meritocracy
or https://boingboing.net/2019/03/18/poes-law-for-oligarchs.html
or for a longer take
http://stet.editorially.com/articles/you-keep-using-that-word/
note: I am not saying ah we should abandon any effort to recognize people's
contributions and commitment to our projects and the foundation. what I
*am* saying is that it is unfortunate that in our effort to build a fair
and equitable organization we have instrumentalized an idea from a
satirical work of fiction that (as per my first email) has the opposite
effect from that which is intended
What various members of our community object to is simply discarding the
> concept and not replacing it with something. What *I* object to is the
> notion that if we just come up with another word for it, Everything Will
> Be OK. To me, that's clearly nonsense.
>
yeah. I don't believe that either. but I do believe that the way we talk
about who we are and what we do is important (and impactful) and that we
should evaluate whether there is room for improvement
Well, yes and no. It's great to be committed, but unless that leads to
> contributions (not just code) then it does not advance the project. In
> the end, we are running software projects, and warm feelings don't
> advance these projects. *Actions* do.
>
it was a mistake for me to bring up the "committer" discussion. it's
tangential. and it has been discussed a lot on the CouchDB lists. I don't
want to muddy the waters here, so let's just stick to the meritocracy stuff
:)
I *think* that on this particular mailing list, you're preaching to the
> choir. And that choir is notably much more diverse than the ASF at
> large. The challenge is spreading this story to the larger congregation.
> Particularly when certain vocal members of that congregation speak very
> loudly against those efforts as being wasteful of time and volunteer
> effort.
>
but in your first email, re people getting offended, you said:
"I understand that these people exist, but citing them as representative
seems weird."
my experience attempting to bring this sort of thing "to the congregation"
(i.e., members@) in the past is *the primary reason* I burnt out and took
hiatus for as long as I did. it was extremely exhausting. being challenged
by multiple people on every little point. being drawn into long, circular,
unproductive, and hostile arguments. having to manage other people's
emotions/outrage/flames
traumatizing too, to be honest
it is ironic (and bitterly unfair) that this sort of work often has to be
done by the people who have a material stake in what is being dismissed and
who are already exhausted/traumatized from all the times they've had these
sorts of conflicts before
I don't know what to do, to be honest. I don't have the emotional or
psychological health required to butt heads on members@ anymore
perhaps a good first step would be to update the material the ComDev
project is responsible for? phase out the word "meritocracy" (and maybe add
a note that acknowledges this change and gives a rationale). reframe our
values and approach as per my last email. from there, we could move on to
http://theapacheway.com/ (if Shane is up for it) and then the Apache
website proper, Incubator, etc. let it percolate through
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 3/21/19 10:51 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> "I'm not aware of anybody (ok, fine, I am aware of one person) that thinks
> that Apache has arrived at meritocratic ideals. Rather, we strive towards
> them."
>
> that's not how we communicate it at all, in my view. here's an ASF blog
> post from 2017 which, in my opinion, is representative of the tone we use
> when speaking about "meritocracy" at Apache:
>
> https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-meritocracy
>
>> What we are is a Meritocracy. To be able to have a say, you have to prove
> your worth in a system of merit. Meritocracy is a key part of The Apache
> Way.
>
> this speaks in confident absolutes: "we *are* a meritocracy"
Ok. You're right, and I will very intentionally try to change my framing
of this issue whenever I speak of it.
> there is a presumption (here, and across the foundation, almost every time
> it has been brought up or mentioned, in my experience) that we're doing it
> (and by it, I mean "meritocracy") well. and a brief look at the homogeneity
> of our committer/member base should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
> notion (unless you believe--and I don't think anyone on this lists
> does--that monied white men just happen to be overwhelmingly more
> meritorious)
As alluded to, I am aware of people in our community who believe that we
have achieved this goal, and that any inference to the contrary is
crazy-making. I explicitly disagree with that stance. We have clearly
*not* achieved this goal, and I was laboring under the assumption that
this was known, to most of us.
https://gifimage.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/it-is-known-gif-13.gif
> this is precisely the outcome that the first article predicts
>
> I can't think of anything that should scare the members of this
> organization more than the idea that by embracing "meritocracy" as a core
> value we ensure that we do worse than other organizations as far as
> inclusion/equity/bias is concerned
Right ... but I don't believe that's what's being said. Meritocracy is a
target, not an established reality. I agree with your assessment that we
need to take steps to talk about it in those terms more intentionally.
What various members of our community object to is simply discarding the
concept and not replacing it with something. What *I* object to is the
notion that if we just come up with another word for it, Everything Will
Be OK. To me, that's clearly nonsense.
I mean, we *want* to recognize people based on their contributions,
right? If we're not doing that, we need to both do better, and talk
about it differently. But talking about it with different words is only
a small part of changing it.
> I'm not suggesting that we make radical changes to the way we recognize
> people's commitment to projects or the foundation as a whole. I am
> suggesting that we change the way we talk about it
++1
> it can be as simple as saying that "we strive to recognize people's
> commitment" and explain that this is how people are elected to various
> positions within projects and the foundation as a whole
I'm very much in favor of this framing.
> (one of the side benefits of talking about "commitment" instead of
> "contributions" is that gets at the heart of what many projects do look
> for: sustained interest and commitment to a project, not just size of
> contributions. it also lets you pivot "committer" into meaning someone who
> is committed, not just someone who commits code. which as I'm sure many of
> you are already aware is one of the big areas in which we tend to exhibit
> bias)
Well, yes and no. It's great to be committed, but unless that leads to
contributions (not just code) then it does not advance the project. In
the end, we are running software projects, and warm feelings don't
advance these projects. *Actions* do.
> instead of focusing on "the ASF is a meritocracy", we could focus on how,
> at the ASF, we recognize that our organization is more homogenous than we
> would like and that we are committed to building a more inclusive, diverse,
> and equitable organization
I *think* that on this particular mailing list, you're preaching to the
choir. And that choir is notably much more diverse than the ASF at
large. The challenge is spreading this story to the larger congregation.
Particularly when certain vocal members of that congregation speak very
loudly against those efforts as being wasteful of time and volunteer effort.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
"It appears to state that because we haven't yet achieved equity, we
shouldn't bother striving for it"
is this in relation to the first article or the second? either way, it's
not what I'm suggesting
I'm not too sure how to answer your question without repeating what is said
in the article. but the key point for me is that observation that
organizations that fancy themselves as "meritocratic" actually exhibit
*more* unconscious bias (and are thus, ironically, *less* meritocratic than
organizations that don't enshrine this as a value)
furthermore, this bias appears to happen because believing that one is
"meritocractic" lulls one into a false sense of security re the state of
one's ability to acknowledge merit in an unbiased manner
"I'm not aware of anybody (ok, fine, I am aware of one person) that thinks
that Apache has arrived at meritocratic ideals. Rather, we strive towards
them."
that's not how we communicate it at all, in my view. here's an ASF blog
post from 2017 which, in my opinion, is representative of the tone we use
when speaking about "meritocracy" at Apache:
https://blogs.apache.org/foundation/entry/success-at-apache-meritocracy
> What we are is a Meritocracy. To be able to have a say, you have to prove
your worth in a system of merit. Meritocracy is a key part of The Apache
Way.
this speaks in confident absolutes: "we *are* a meritocracy"
there is a presumption (here, and across the foundation, almost every time
it has been brought up or mentioned, in my experience) that we're doing it
(and by it, I mean "meritocracy") well. and a brief look at the homogeneity
of our committer/member base should be enough to disabuse anyone of that
notion (unless you believe--and I don't think anyone on this lists
does--that monied white men just happen to be overwhelmingly more
meritorious)
this is precisely the outcome that the first article predicts
I can't think of anything that should scare the members of this
organization more than the idea that by embracing "meritocracy" as a core
value we ensure that we do worse than other organizations as far as
inclusion/equity/bias is concerned
I'm not suggesting that we make radical changes to the way we recognize
people's commitment to projects or the foundation as a whole. I am
suggesting that we change the way we talk about it
it can be as simple as saying that "we strive to recognize people's
commitment" and explain that this is how people are elected to various
positions within projects and the foundation as a whole
(one of the side benefits of talking about "commitment" instead of
"contributions" is that gets at the heart of what many projects do look
for: sustained interest and commitment to a project, not just size of
contributions. it also lets you pivot "committer" into meaning someone who
is committed, not just someone who commits code. which as I'm sure many of
you are already aware is one of the big areas in which we tend to exhibit
bias)
instead of focusing on "the ASF is a meritocracy", we could focus on how,
at the ASF, we recognize that our organization is more homogenous than we
would like and that we are committed to building a more inclusive, diverse,
and equitable organization
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 14:21, Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com> wrote:
> I read the article last week when it was doing the rounds, and I must
> admit I find it confusing. It appears to state that because we haven't
> yet achieved equity, we shouldn't bother striving for it. This seems
> false and harmful.
>
> I'm not aware of anybody (ok, fine, I am aware of one person) that
> thinks that Apache has arrived at meritocratic ideals. Rather, we strive
> towards them. If it's the *word* that's objectionable, sure, fine. But
> abandoning the *ideal* doesn't seem like a desired outcome.
>
> I acknowledge that I am the recipient of enormous luck and privilege. I
> certainly don't believe that I have arrived where I am in the world
> purely by hard work. And frankly, citing Stuart Varney as representative
> of ... well, anything or anyone, is, itself, kind of comic. He's a
> pompous blow-hard with a lengthy history of arrogant remarks about
> unsavory poor people who are not as wonderful as himself. I understand
> that these people exist, but citing them as representative seems weird.
>
> I would, however, ask what it is, specifically, that you're suggesting.
>
> On 3/20/19 5:49 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> > this article crossed my news feed today:
> >
> >
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
> >
> > here's a key takeaway:
> >
> >> [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
> > managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees
> > with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where
> > meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
> >
> > many aspects of this piece mirror something I wrote for Model View
> Culture
> > a few years ago:
> > https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
> >
> > namely, that "the meritocracy" is a status quo supporting, hierarchy
> > legitimizing myth used to justify people's existing social status and
> > treatment
> >
> > I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> > examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache (this is
> > especially true in 2019 given what we know about the lack of diversity at
> > the ASF)
> >
> > when I was writing about this in 2014, I was already a few years behind
> the
> > curve re discourse about culture and tech diversity. it's now 2019 and
> even
> > FastCompany is writing about it
> >
>
> --
> Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
> http://rcbowen.com/
> @rbowen
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
I read the article last week when it was doing the rounds, and I must
admit I find it confusing. It appears to state that because we haven't
yet achieved equity, we shouldn't bother striving for it. This seems
false and harmful.
I'm not aware of anybody (ok, fine, I am aware of one person) that
thinks that Apache has arrived at meritocratic ideals. Rather, we strive
towards them. If it's the *word* that's objectionable, sure, fine. But
abandoning the *ideal* doesn't seem like a desired outcome.
I acknowledge that I am the recipient of enormous luck and privilege. I
certainly don't believe that I have arrived where I am in the world
purely by hard work. And frankly, citing Stuart Varney as representative
of ... well, anything or anyone, is, itself, kind of comic. He's a
pompous blow-hard with a lengthy history of arrogant remarks about
unsavory poor people who are not as wonderful as himself. I understand
that these people exist, but citing them as representative seems weird.
I would, however, ask what it is, specifically, that you're suggesting.
On 3/20/19 5:49 AM, Naomi Slater wrote:
> this article crossed my news feed today:
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
>
> here's a key takeaway:
>
>> [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
> managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees
> with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where
> meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
>
> many aspects of this piece mirror something I wrote for Model View Culture
> a few years ago:
> https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
>
> namely, that "the meritocracy" is a status quo supporting, hierarchy
> legitimizing myth used to justify people's existing social status and
> treatment
>
> I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache (this is
> especially true in 2019 given what we know about the lack of diversity at
> the ASF)
>
> when I was writing about this in 2014, I was already a few years behind the
> curve re discourse about culture and tech diversity. it's now 2019 and even
> FastCompany is writing about it
>
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org>.
don't wanna spam the list. but here's a bit of serendipity. another piece
crossed my newsfeed today
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/21/17687402/kylie-jenner-luck-human-life-moral-privilege
this one is a longer read. but perhaps interesting for this list's
subscribers, because builds quite nicely on the core ideas of the previous
post
specifically:
> These recent controversies reminded me of the fuss around a book that
came out a few years ago: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of
Meritocracy, by economist Robert Frank. (Vox’s Sean Illing interviewed
Frank last year.) It argued that luck plays a large role in every human
success and failure, which ought to be a rather banal and uncontroversial
point, but the reaction of many commentators was gobsmacked outrage. On Fox
Business, Stuart Varney sputtered at Frank: “Do you know how insulting that
was, when I read that?”
that outrage certainly mirrors some of the reactions I have witnessed when
I have suggested that structural inequities (and not 100% "merit") have a
role to play in someone's position of power/respect/success in tech
On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:49, Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> this article crossed my news feed today:
>
>
> https://www.fastcompany.com/40510522/meritocracy-doesnt-exist-and-believing-it-does-is-bad-for-you
>
> here's a key takeaway:
>
> > [...] in companies that explicitly held meritocracy as a core value,
> managers assigned greater rewards to male employees over female employees
> with identical performance evaluations. This preference disappeared where
> meritocracy was not explicitly adopted as a value.
>
> many aspects of this piece mirror something I wrote for Model View Culture
> a few years ago:
> https://modelviewculture.com/pieces/the-open-source-identity-crisis
>
> namely, that "the meritocracy" is a status quo supporting, hierarchy
> legitimizing myth used to justify people's existing social status and
> treatment
>
> I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache (this is
> especially true in 2019 given what we know about the lack of diversity at
> the ASF)
>
> when I was writing about this in 2014, I was already a few years behind
> the curve re discourse about culture and tech diversity. it's now 2019 and
> even FastCompany is writing about it
>
>
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Rich Bowen <rb...@rcbowen.com>.
On 3/28/19 8:16 AM, Bertrand Delacretaz wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
>> ...I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
>> examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache...
>
> I have just a small comment about this: I think we use "meritocracy"
> to mean that someone who *adds value* to a project gets more rights
> and responsibilities.
>
> And "adding value" has nothing to do with who you are, it just means
> you are making positive contributions to a project.
>
> Framing things like that, and maybe finding a simple way to express
> that concept, might help.
https://www.apache.org/theapacheway seems to make good steps in that
direction, and is the message that we need to be getting behind, and
linking to, when communicating what we mean.
--
Rich Bowen - rbowen@rcbowen.com
http://rcbowen.com/
@rbowen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
Posted by Bertrand Delacretaz <bd...@apache.org>.
Hi,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 12:53 PM Naomi Slater <no...@tumbolia.org> wrote:
> ...I'll say what I've said before: it's long since time for us to critically
> examine the way we use the concept of "meritocracy" at Apache...
I have just a small comment about this: I think we use "meritocracy"
to mean that someone who *adds value* to a project gets more rights
and responsibilities.
And "adding value" has nothing to do with who you are, it just means
you are making positive contributions to a project.
Framing things like that, and maybe finding a simple way to express
that concept, might help.
-Bertrand
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@community.apache.org