mtcn77The whole argument I made up to this point is in reference to her work. This wasn't about sexism, it was about you being against the work of the individual you are saying you defend. This is reverse-racism; however you are first to break your own rule.
Also, if women aren't traumatized, what is all the fuss about cussing?

StrayKATI know you're joking, but it is funny how it could be construed that way. I didn't think of it in a stereotypical manner though - but was more focused on her age in the Soviet Union. Anyone can easily be traumatized, but especially a kid.

edit: I suppose this is still "Ageism" :p

R-T-BYou aren't even making sense anymore and seem to fail to realize no one was being sexist save maybe you.

I give up.

mtcn77Funny, how it all performed according to the book. You lost your ego.

mtcn77Quit using gender stereotypes, or people might swat you on your day jobs, amirite guys? Of course, there is zero-risk in showing your bias when displayed towards a deceased non-participant because we are only inclusive within the participating group, anyway? It is hard to bring discussions to some people without hitting some cognitive gap.


You don't run a business being an employee. Quit expecting a fair world fantasy.

R-T-B...but if we're going there, you'd best read the actual CoC text. It's the only enforceable thing, not the authors goals.

ValantarIt's quite fascinating to read arguments from someone with such a fundamentally naive and unquestioning trust in authority. It's no wonder we don't see eye to eye - it's obvious that your default assumption is that the people in power are always the right and best people to be in power, and the threshold for evidence to prove otherwise seems unreasonably high. Your extremely narrowly selected examples make this authoritarian starting point abundantly clear.

Valantar

1. The new developer lets the established one know that the response was inappropriate, and the experienced developer accepts and apologizes. They address this as adults, reach a productive compromise (whether this is the new developer adapting to established approaches, or the experienced developer recognizing the value of a solution outside of their normal mode of operation), and the problem goes away. This is likely to increase both productivity and quality of output.
2. The new developer lets the established one know the response was inappropriate, but the experienced developer rejects this entirely, and refuses to adjust their behaviour on the grounds of seniority and experience (neither of which are relevant to interpersonal behaviour). The new developer is less motivated because of this, feels devalued and looked down on, and either produces lacklustre code, or just quits. This reduces the productivity and quality of output of the group, and the group loses out on potential improvements.
3. The new developer lets the established one know the response was inappropriate, but the experienced developer rejects this entirely, and refuses to adjust their behaviour on the grounds of seniority and experience (neither of which are relevant to interpersonal behaviour). The situation escalates, and the less experienced developer is fired/expelled from the group, as the senior developer has more authority. Again, this reduces the productivity and quality of output of the group, and the group loses out on potential improvements.

ValantarBesides this, what you're describing isn't a meritocracy. As such, the term post-meritocracy is kind of silly (given that there never has been one), but it needs to be used as people like you keep harping on it. The meritocracy isn't, and has never been real. Ever. Period. There is no such thing as pure merit outside of abstract thought experiments or oversimplifications irrelevant to real life, and no workplace has ever been free of social interaction and thus complex social dynamics. Judging from their manifesto, the post-meritocracy movement is doing nothing more than recognizing and underscoring this simple, plain fact. If you choose to deny this fact, that's on you. But please stop acting like you're promoting some sort of Platonic ideal of a meritocracy. Real life doesn't work that way, and if you can't see that, that's a failure of your perception of the world, not my arguments.

ValantarSoftware has a purpose, and that purpose is not "to be programmed well" - quality programming will make the software better, but it won't make it useful or suited to its purpose. As such, planning, strategy and management requires insight into how the software is likely to be used to at least an equivalent degree as it requires insight into how the program is written.

ValantarThis alone shows how your idea of a "meritocracy" is incompatible with reality outside of projects where the use case is simple and predefined/known and there is one developer (or very few who already know each other and thus have already established norms of conduct). Linux - or any piece of complex software created by a team - does not fit within this description. It might thus very well be a mediocre coder has the best vision of how to best decide the future direction of development, or that an excellent coder has chronic strategic tunnel vision and can't understand how and why people use the software. The requirements for creating good software is thus not simply "have good coders". You also need good leaders, good plans, good teamwork, and good relations. The latter two require mutually agreed-upon and enforceable rules and norms, otherwise you'll either have unproductive chaos, or waste time solving simple, silly situations, both of which are antithetical to making good software.

ValantarSo we should all give up and accept unfairness and discrimination? Nah, sorry, not quite buying that kind of fatalistic nonsense. History clearly shows that increased and sustained fairness is entirely possible. No reason to stop trying. Also, good job again not actually responding to any critique of your arguments whatsoever (you even quote the post where I'm not addressing you). Well done. If life was a RPG, you'd have the "argument dodger" skill maxed out. One might almost suspect that you're having trouble putting forward rational arguments towards your stance?

Oh, btw, being traumatized isn't a gender stereotype...

FordGT90ConceptAs discussed previously, "fairness" is highly contextual. In many cases, fairness is an impossibility.

mtcn77What if the implied is *not* a misery romanticiser and an inspired toughnut? A true female chauvinist! I suppose by now they should have started playing the same tune like a broken tape recorder.


Funny, how it all performed according to the book. You lost your ego.

medi01You are supporting organization that is made to "increase" number of LGBTQ+ people in a goddamn OPEN SOURCE COMMUNITY, where you can be fully anonymous, nobody ever asks you about your gender or what kind of sex you enjoy and nobody gives a flying f*ck about your political views. Who the hell even knows if LGBTQ+ people are even underrepresented in OS???

FordGT90ConceptLinux is Torvalds' baby and he wants to see it grow.

medi01nobody ever asks you about your gender or what kind of sex you enjoy and nobody gives a flying f*ck about your political views.

StrayKATWell, I didn't say she was miserable per se. I said she was traumatized. But sure, she could be a tough cookie as a result of that. I just don't think it was the right kind of tough. Her brand of toughness promoted only elitism. I'd prefer the toughness of a martial arts instructor or drill sargeant, who can be a hardass, but still wants to build people up.

mtcn77Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks, else you are an employee which, so these idiots think, is a substitute for greatness.

StrayKATWell, Alexander the "Great" had his dad and Aristotle who both paved the way for the so called Philosopher-King :p And Phillip himself had mastered the phalanx from a long Hellene tradition (notably the Spartans).. Aristotle himself had Plato... and Plato himself had Pythagoras. Etc..

What are we talking about again?

mtcn77Well, greatness does not require second parties. That is what makes someone great because if your reference is someone else, you aren't: it is as simple as that. You need be over the frontier where the tide breaks...

mtcn77That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

mtcn77That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

mtcn77That Aristotle was elitist by your standards.

StrayKATHonestly, I have no idea what we're talking about anymore. Just going with the flow.

R-T-BDude, whatever fits his agenda. Don't even bother. He's an embarassment that's making me reconsider my libertarian side (as small as it was).



I mean, he was and he'd probably even be proud of that term, yes?

mtcn77Well, it was you who said Aristotle was Plato's pupil.

mtcn77You cannot disprove something without prior examination.

mtcn77Well, it was you who said Aristotle was Plato's pupil. The mere fact his anthology is totally against the former says volumes. You cannot disprove something without prior examination.

R-T-BHe literally attended Plato's academy, so yeah, he was.



You can when it has literally no foundation, because there is literally nothing comprehensible to examine.

Pretty much what's going on here.

R-T-BHe's also the one that adopted this, or did I misunderstand?

StrayKATThey're both advocates for an elite class (and slavery to boot). They had different ways of going about it, but the goal was the same. Every Greek philosopher outside the Ionian tradition pretty much stems from Pythagoras. Even if they varied, they're all Rationalists.

The Ionians OTOH (who eventually lost influence ) were far from elitist.. They were the practical, down to earth guys.. More empiricist compared to Pythagoras' rationalism. Many involved in mercantilism and other common trades. None of them argued for special classes to run society, or spoke in abstractions, or wanted special people designated to rule and/or know the "mathematical mysteries" of the universe or any such nonsense. They didn't want to keep anyone in the dark. They wanted knowledge to be available to everyone and used in everyday, practical situations. If I'm an advocate of anyone in Greece, it was these guys.

But I still don't know what this has to do with Linux.