Patrick, You admit this is just window dressing. This would not address the problem highlighted in the pull request study you cited. It is designed only to make people feel better about themselves while doing little. To conform word choice with popular political trends, nothing more.
There is no conflict between use of the word "meritocracy" and diversity. Open source is inherently more meritocratic, diverse, and egalitarian than proprietary software. I regularly work with developers from all over the world. There are reasonable efforts underway through outreach and scholarships to boost diversity and accessibility. This proposal goes beyond that though. There are some people with extreme political views bent on changing language in pursuit of their own personal power. In exchange, they offer you the opportunity to feel good that you are "doing something" about "diversity" by conforming to their language policing. This is simply a ploy to cement the political authority of the aforementioned movement. It does not advance diversity. This movement is against meritocracy because they politically believe meritocracy is inherently biased, more specifically that they are entitled to their own power and influence within projects simply by virtue of having the right political views. They use control of language and cooperation of well-meaning people to achieve their power. As you can see from the first reply to your comment, you will never completely appease these people. Even in making your proposal you got called out for using unapproved nomenclature. To them, short of putting them directly in charge as dictators, there is nothing that will make Mozilla not systematically oppressive, it will never be enough. The line must be drawn here.jpg. There is no compelling reason to change the usage of the word meritocratic in the governance documents. There are compelling reasons not to give into language policing, at best does nothing to advance diversity, at worst it empowers a fringe group of authoritarian radicals who are hell-bent on giving themselves power and influence to dictate even more. Mozilla already drove out it's CEO for having unapproved opinions, donates money to far-left groups, and has adopted the consensus left solution to net neutrality. No one seems to care what effect the previous might have on viewpoint diversity. I still use Firefox though because it's good code, that is what matters to me, not the virtue signaling. No one has responded to a number of serious, systematical technical issues raised in the previous post, here: https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla.governance/ckPh2OmLYqE/_pmRhRW8CQAJ. At a certain point Mozilla will need to decide whether it's a open source software project or a political organization. RO _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
