FWIW, I still use the term meritocracy and, in fact, did so at the
ApacheCon roadshow in DC this week. I address up front that for
some people, "meritocracy" is a bad word, and I say I disagree.
I then say something like the below:
"Merit has nothing to do with gender, or race, or religion,
or what genitalia one has or is attracted to. If your idea
of what constitutes merit is based on any of these, then
that's a f'ed up definition of merit. That means it's a
problem w/ how merit is defined, and not meritocracy per se."
Let's recall that all this has its basis back when we wanted to
make it easy and rewarding for people to spend their valuable
free time volunteering their talents to Apache projects. We needed
some way for them to be recognized and rewarded and so merit was,
and IS (or, at least should be) based on what they DO. We reward
those actions and behaviors that help build and nurture a community.
Those are the actions and behaviors that gain one merit.
So even though it might be a losing battle, I still say that
problems w/ meritocracy are based on incomplete or inappropriate
definitions of merit and not the concept itself.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@community.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@community.apache.org
