On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:53 AM Rich Bowen <rbo...@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-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
