"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 <rbo...@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 - rbo...@rcbowen.com > http://rcbowen.com/ > @rbowen > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org > >
