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 - 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
