Slashdot Mirror

The wing-nuts specifically want equity over equality. That is, they don't want equality of opportunity, they want equality of outcome. That post is also a perfect example of the Motte and Bailey strategy. The first part is the actual goal, the bailey. Inequal treatment in their favor. The second part is what they defend, the motte, which looks entirely reasonable. They are also against meritocracy. It is horrific. I can't believe that this got into the linux kernel and that people are standing by this sort of drivel.

But people get swept up in movements. It becomes a tribalism thing of us vs them. You know it's a bad witch-hunt when any call for moderation gets you labeled as a witch. Democrats need to self-police and protest the protection and acceptance of these sort of hate-filled racist and sexist bigots. Otherwise our party is going to get as crazy as the TEA-partiers.

(But Cosby is black. You too also need to tone down the racist rhetoric)

Yes, if we abandon Meritocracy, we will eventually end up with a downward spiral. This is the danger that movements like https://postmeritocracy.org/ cause.

History has proven this, but we forget. This is exactly what happened in Russia. There was inequality (wealth), so those with resources "obviously" must have been hoarding it--they were biased against those with less. So those in power seized the wealth and imprisoned the farmers (Kulaks) in 1918-1933+[1]. This resulted in the Kulaks slaughtering their animals, selling the meat and grain, and hiding their resources. Keep in mind the Kulaks weren't the "1%"--these were lower-middle class farmers.

This resulted in massive starvation as the agricultural sector in Russia collapsed in 1932.[2]
When the snow melted true starvation began. People had swollen faces and legs and stomachs. They could not contain their urine... And now they ate anything at all. They caught mice, rats, sparrows, ants, earthworms. They ground up bones into flour, and did the same with leather and shoe soles ...[1]

Don't declare war on those with skills and resources. Do provide social assistance for those less fortunate in your society, but not at the expense of declaring war on the rich. If you eliminate or destroy those who drive the economic engine of your country, it will collapse. Societal collapse results in immeasurable suffering and the deaths of hundreds of millions. This is the lesson that history has taught over and over again, but we seem to have forgotten in the pursuit of "equality". If you don't believe me, read the Gulag Archipelago. It used to be required reading in US social studies classes, but we've abandoned that. The march towards equality at the expense of ability and merit is as scary as it is wrong.

Sources:
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

With FreeBSD and now Linux governed by codes of conduct which prioritize feelings over quality, as development on these systems grinds to a halt, perhaps a new project will emerge which includes meritocracy as a core tenet of its charter.

When I first read this I thought it was satire:
https://postmeritocracy.org/

But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”

It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.

We believe that interpersonal skills are at least as important as technical skills.

We acknowledge the value of non-technical contributors as equal to the value of technical contributors.

. . . and promote and value excellent contributions, or you can care more about someones' feelz above all else. Linux just chose the latter, initiating a well-known downward spiral of complaining and inevitable technical stagnation that's been seen many times before once these CoCs are introduced into open source projects. At the end of the day, these two things are mutually exclusive, thanks to the everything-offends-me-and-if you-don't-agree-you're-a-misogynist-racist SJW brigade. This is the logical conclusion of weaponizing CoCs which target straight white males from the get-go, particularly those authored by people who hate the idea of meritocracy.

Guess what? The real world doesn't give a *fuck* how you feel, especially in unforgiving disciplines like engineering and tech. Life ain't fair, and 99%+ of the people contributing to Linux don't give two shits about social justice one way or the other. Open source is *not* a social movement! Those people are there to code -- well -- and because they're adults they can handle a rant or two every one in awhile and even a nasty, well-deserved public undressing, and they don't need one of these batshit-crazy CoCs to tell them how to behave. The simple addition of "Don't be an asshole" would've addressed the specific concern without throwing the baby out with the bathwater while giving power to those who don't necessarily deserve it.

https://postmeritocracy.org/

Fortunately it comes with a convenient list of "People you do not want anywhere near your project".

If there is any doubt on their agenda, read "The Post-Meritocracy Manifesto", but in fact, the title says it all.

As you suggested, I did read the manifesto https://postmeritocracy.org/.

I'd say the title doesn't say it all, nor even much of it -- the title seems to be intentionally written to sound paradoxical and so entice you to read further. Based on the first four paragraphs, I think the title would be more accurate (but more wordy) if it said "Meritocracy is obviously a good principle in theory -- but in practice the actual measurement of merit has been so inaccurate and biased that we could collectively be more productive if we think through what we're trying to achieve and figure out other principles that are more practically effective."

Tell me: which specific bullet-points or sentences in that manifesto did you disagree with? Or did you disagree with implications or consequences of the manifesto rather than something written in it?

One really can't discuss the wording of the CoC without discussing the Contributor Covenant and the larger philosophical goals of the Post-Meritocracy manifesto

I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.

You're correct, the CoC doesn't absolutely require adopting the PMM. However, it would be very hard to ignore the fact that both were written by the same person with the same overall agenda in mind and what the previous person said is 100% correct, this is a political agenda and has nothing to do with technology and only relates to being respectful to people insofar as the ways in which that advances the political agenda in question.

The previous "code" Linux had was fine. If a change was needed, an amendment of "Also, don't be a dick" would have worked. However, they have ripped out a code which specifically called for quality and good engineering above all and replaced it with one written by someone who is, by their own words a "Notorious Social Justice Warrior". I don't know the person, I could be misinterpreting their words and maybe it is tongue-in-cheek. I tend to doubt it.

One really can't discuss the wording of the CoC without discussing the Contributor Covenant and the larger philosophical goals of the Post-Meritocracy manifesto

I think you can. Nothing in CoC states that you must also adopt the manifesto. Sure, this CoC was produced by dubious people with very questionable intentions. Likewise, GPL license is based on Stallman's ideas. This doesn't mean that we have to adopt all of the Stallman's extreme views about software in their entirety. I am still hopeful that sanity will prevail and it won't go past CoC. However, I do understand and share your concerns.

I really, really, really wish these had been handled non-concurrently. It's virtually impossible not to analyze or comment on the two events together, which leads to some unsettling connotations for some.

While I think Linus taking a breather to maybe not be as much of a dick while still demanding high quality code is an admirable moment of self-reflection, the roots of this Code of Conduct are quite unsettling.

One really can't discuss the wording of the CoC without discussing the Contributor Covenant and the larger philosophical goals of the Post-Meritocracy manifesto.

From the CC:

A Code of Conduct for Open Source Projects
Open Source has always been a foundation of the Internet, and with the advent of social open source networks this is more true than ever. But free, libre, and open source projects suffer from a startling lack of diversity, with dramatically low representation by women, people of color, and other marginalized populations.

Part of this problem lies with the very structure of some projects: the use of insensitive language, thoughtless use of pronouns, assumptions of gender, and even sexualized or culturally insensitive names.

Marginalized people also suffer some of the unintended consequences of dogmatic insistence on meritocratic principles of governance. Studies have shown that organizational cultures that value meritocracy often result in greater inequality.

From the PMM:

Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.

But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”

(If you are not familiar with criticisms of meritocracy, please refer to the resources on this page.)

It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured, can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and can ever be distributed fairly.

These are explicitly political documents... and they should be addressed as such. I don't think anyone has a problem with "don't be a jerk, and don't make it personal" in an open source project. Arguably, Linus has stepped over the line on occasion. The adoption of this document goes far beyond rectifying a mere lack of teeth in telling people to "Be excellent to each other"

This makes me think that you didn't stumble upon it just now, because if you had you would have copy/pasted the correct URL.

No, I simply screwed up the url in the href in my post. My comment originally included just a simple link to her manifesto site, like this:

https://postmeritocracy.org/

When I previewed my comment, I decided it would better if the link was more descriptive. So I then edited the post to include the "which contains" line in the link, and when I did that I somehow also inserted a period between post and meritocracy in the URL.

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity!

(Yes, I'm a very stupid person.)

Correct URL:

https://postmeritocracy.org/

This is literally a manifesto against meritocracy. In a project like Linux, anything but meritocracy is a horrible idea. If you don't contribute good, useful patches, you shouldn't be contributing to Linux.

I'm not panicking yet but this is not a good sign.