Re: Apache Brochure/Tri-Fold?
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:23 PM Shane Curcuru wrote: > > Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 3/21/19 8:57 PM: > > Anyone know where the source for this is at so I can print some for the > > roadshow? > > Last updated 2017, but it is a trifold brochure layout: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/marketing/brochure/ As a side note, the Russian translation has a very messed up font kerning. Would be great to fix it. Thanks, Roman. - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Apache Brochure/Tri-Fold?
On 3/21/2019 9:13 PM, Shane Curcuru wrote: > Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 3/21/19 8:57 PM: >> Anyone know where the source for this is at so I can print some for the >> roadshow? > Last updated 2017, but it is a trifold brochure layout: > > https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/marketing/brochure/ > Thanks Shane, Can someone update the English version to put in more current numbers on page two and the committer/member/committees/initiative numbers? Regards, KAM -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: Apache Brochure/Tri-Fold?
Kevin A. McGrail wrote on 3/21/19 8:57 PM: > Anyone know where the source for this is at so I can print some for the > roadshow? Last updated 2017, but it is a trifold brochure layout: https://svn.apache.org/repos/asf/comdev/marketing/brochure/ -- - Shane Director & Member The Apache Software Foundation - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Apache Brochure/Tri-Fold?
Anyone know where the source for this is at so I can print some for the roadshow? Regards, KAM -- Kevin A. McGrail Member, Apache Software Foundation Chair Emeritus Apache SpamAssassin Project https://www.linkedin.com/in/kmcgrail - 703.798.0171 - To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
Re: on "meritocracy"
A few more hits on 'meritoc' since we use "meritocratic" some places. On 3/21/19 1:53 PM, Rich Bowen wrote: > 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. -- 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
Re: on "meritocracy"
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. -- Rich Bowen - rbo...@rcbowen.com http://rcbowen.com/ @rbowen - To
Re: on "meritocracy"
On Thu, 21 Mar 2019 at 17:04, Rich Bowen wrote: > 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 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. in the novel, the moral lesson is that any attempt to build a meritocracy is doomed to failure because it presupposes that the people with power and status can be relied upon to fairly judge who ought to have power and status see https://kottke.org/17/03/the-satirical-origins-of-the-meritocracy or https://boingboing.net/2019/03/18/poes-law-for-oligarchs.html or for a longer take http://stet.editorially.com/articles/you-keep-using-that-word/ note: I am not saying ah we should abandon any effort to recognize people's contributions and commitment to our projects and the foundation. what I *am* saying is that it is unfortunate that in our effort to build a fair and equitable organization we have instrumentalized an idea from a satirical work of fiction that (as per my first email) has the opposite effect from that which is intended 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. > yeah. I don't believe that either. but I do believe that the way we talk about who we are and what we do is important (and impactful) and that we should evaluate whether there is room for improvement 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. > it was a mistake for me to bring up the "committer" discussion. it's tangential. and it has been discussed a lot on the CouchDB lists. I don't want to muddy the waters here, so let's just stick to the meritocracy stuff :) 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." 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 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 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
Re: on "meritocracy"
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
Re: on "meritocracy"
"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 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: > >
Re: on "meritocracy"
Thanks for these links to interesting reading. These are topics I care deeply about. I'd be very interested in related analyses around specific forms or instances of open source governance. Kenn On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 6:21 AM Rich Bowen 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 > >
Re: on "meritocracy"
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
Re: on "meritocracy"
don't wanna spam the list. but here's a bit of serendipity. another piece crossed my newsfeed today https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2018/8/21/17687402/kylie-jenner-luck-human-life-moral-privilege this one is a longer read. but perhaps interesting for this list's subscribers, because builds quite nicely on the core ideas of the previous post specifically: > These recent controversies reminded me of the fuss around a book that came out a few years ago: Success and Luck: Good Fortune and the Myth of Meritocracy, by economist Robert Frank. (Vox’s Sean Illing interviewed Frank last year.) It argued that luck plays a large role in every human success and failure, which ought to be a rather banal and uncontroversial point, but the reaction of many commentators was gobsmacked outrage. On Fox Business, Stuart Varney sputtered at Frank: “Do you know how insulting that was, when I read that?” that outrage certainly mirrors some of the reactions I have witnessed when I have suggested that structural inequities (and not 100% "merit") have a role to play in someone's position of power/respect/success in tech On Wed, 20 Mar 2019 at 10:49, 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 > >
on "meritocracy"
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
