----- Original Message ----- From: "David Bruant" <[email protected]>
But as said Henri Sivonen: "I think Mozilla would give a more truthful picture of its decision making if it didn't describe itself as a meritocracy." Maybe that instead of "meritocracy" we need to find (or create?) a better wording that takes meritocracy into account, but is descriptive of how we make our community stronger and more diverse (being representative of the world not necessarily being a end-goal) by making some choice through other criterion than (internal) merit. --------- I think that we're talking about "Mozilla is a meritocracy" but we're taking the phrase out of context. When I did a web search for "Mozilla meritocracy" this was the first page I got - http://www.mozilla.org/about/roles.html: "The Mozilla project is governed by a virtual management team made up of experts from various parts of the community. Some people with leadership roles are employed to work on Mozilla and others are not. Leadership roles are granted based on how active an individual is within the community as well as the quality and nature of his or her contributions. This meritocracy is a resilient and effective way to guide our global community." The point of "meritocracy" is as opposed to "only employers can be leaders". This context does not make the claim that Mozilla is 100% based on merit, and I think the discussion we've been having indicates that's not what we'd want, anyway. The point of Mozilla being a meritocracy is in the context of "who are our leaders?" and those are based on activity, quality and nature of contributions, whether those contributions are code or more "soft" skills like leadership. -Sheeri _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
