Re:Code of Merit: A meritocratic approach to project managem...
by brobdingnagians on Wednesday September 26, 2018 @08:10AM
(#18075050)
Ultimately, the person who originally created the project had a good idea and has a claim to the products [it is _their_ "original fork" anyhow, and anyone else can fork the project if they want.]. It is difficult for _any_ open source or self organizing group to come up with good leadership. The default is the originators and those who they think are contributing. That is what forking is for, if something calcifies, re-vitalize it with a new repository and your own control. Open source gives you control over things, either as a creator, or for your own purposes as a fork. You can fork it and put it under a CoC if you want, then see who contributes where. That's what the _free_ part of open source refers to.
It is difficult for _any_ group to not calcify into a leadership position, but I'd rather have the calcified remnants of those who produced something at some time, instead of having an arbitrary committee based on modern liberal ideals and pushed by an external group.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy
> "It is good sense to appoint individual people to jobs on their merit. It is the opposite when those who are judged to have merit of a particular kind harden into a new social class without room in it for others."
Here are the two key criteria from the Code of Merit governing how contributors are rewarded:
> 4. Authority or position in the project will be proportional to the accrued contribution. Seniority must be earned.
> 5. Software is evolutive: the better implementations must supersede lesser implementations. Technical advantage is the primary evaluation metric.
However, these are inherently subjective measures, dependent on who is among the project's "managing members" and thus in a position to propose candidates and render judgement. At the very least it is an unstable system in the absence of formal governance mechanisms (e.g. 2/3 majority rule on proposed candidates) and committed leadership.
Ultimately, it is frighteningly difficult to avoid calcifying into an exclusive group, fulfilling the satirical prophesies of "meritocracy".