On 08/31/2016 09:25 AM, Brook Manville wrote: > Chad (Ron, Bryan, and others)....after our conversation yesterday, I was > struck by the opinion piece I read today by William Galston > (below)--about the revolt against elites (and "meritocracy") in post-war > politics. Per our conversation, note the highlighted section in the > article I emphasized for you. Kind regards
Thanks very much for this, Brook, and for continuing the conversation. I found the article good food for thought, so please be prepared for some sweeping generalizations ahead: The particular tenor or valence "meritocracy" carries in articles like Gaston's is in some ways rather _opposed_ to that which the term carries in many open source communities and the organizations founded on open principles, though the _literal_ meanings of the terms in both domains remain relatively constant. In both cases, "meritocracy" names a mechanism for governance whereby those with the longest history of concrete and substantial contributions to the community organization get afforded more influence or, really, power (they can make stuff happen in ways others really can't) in that system. Articles like Galston's tend to underscore this system's decidedly elitist undertones. "Code talks," but some people's code talks with greater force than others. Classes exist, and class status accrues to this with demonstrated ability (not something like a family tree or an arbitrary title, for example). Incidentally, this is the same figure of "meritocracy" that appears in books like Hayes' _Twilight of the Elites_ and, of course, Young's _The Rise of the Meritocracy_. Democracy is the foil to meritocracy—a form of governance overtly valuing a plurality of voices and opening opportunities for busting hardened class divisions. Interestingly enough (to me, anyway), many open source communities and open organizations harness the same (or a similar) definition of "meritocracy, but articulate to it a _different_ tenor or valence, even as they _still_ juxtapose it with democracy. In _The Open Organization_, for example, democracy is meritocracy's foil—but _meritocracy_ is the form of governance overtly valuing a plurality of voices and opening opportunities for busting hardened class divisions. Code talks, and thank goodness that some code talks differently than others (or we'd have chaos and stasis!). Classes exit, but they are fluid, shifting, and the very thing against which meritocratic forms of governance should protect us. Good ideas can come from anywhere; ideas matter more than titles; what you do is more important than what you say you can do or will do; concrete contribution should be the primary criterion for judgment(s); reputation is earned, not bestowed. So I think a pivotal step in investigating the very particular nature of "meritocracy" in open source communities and open organizations is to focus on the specific ways the terms gets mobilized (what it gets "put to work to do"). Only then can we really parse the distinction between "meritocracy" and "democracy"—each of which we ask to carry similar valences in different contexts. Sorry, more coffee than usual this morning. Hope that makes sense. _______________________________________________ Openorg-list mailing list [email protected] https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/openorg-list
