agreed re "do-ocracy" 1) like Patricia points out, like "meritocracy", it presupposes our past and future ability implement such a system
2) even if we *have* been successful at implementing such a system, is that really enough for us, from an ideological perspective? are we not concerned with who *isn't* contributing, and why? what we can do about it, etc, etc this is why I think it's important to separate this into to components: (a) a statement about what we want to achieve that explicitly acknowledges the potential for bias and discrimination, and (b) practical information/guidance that helps us work towards that On Fri, 22 Mar 2019 at 17:59, Rich Bowen <rbo...@rcbowen.com> wrote: > > > On 3/22/19 3:03 AM, Roman Shaposhnik wrote: > > 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. > > As discussed elsewhere in the thread, simply coming up with a new word, > while potentially helpful in starting conversations, doesn't really > address the underlying problem. And each new word (do-ocracy is one that > has been proposed, for example) comes with its own set of concerns and > baggage. > > We have had the "what other word can we use" conversation at least once > on this mailing list, and at least one on members, in the last 2 years. > Neither conversation resulted in anything actionable. > > -- > 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 > >
