cutting off their nose

Posted Oct 28, 2025 14:47 UTC (Tue) by niner (guest, #26151)
In reply to: cutting off their nose by AntiISO
Parent article: Python Software Foundation withdraws security-related grant proposal

It stands out to me that you advise not judging DEI by its "book cover" and instead going into detail, while simultaneously judging the Post-Meritocracy Manifest solely on its "cover" and refusing to engage in its actual content. If you'd do that you'd quickly come across this sentence: "It is time that we as an industry abandon the notion that merit is something that can be measured objectively, that can be pursued on equal terms by every individual, and that can ever be distributed fairly."

This alone makes it clear that this manifest is not at all arguing for completely ignoring merit. Instead it's based on the realization that merit cannot be measured objectively. This ties it back directly to DEI, because it's clear that we perceive contributions as more or less important not only on the contribution itself but also because of who contributed it. And there we do tend to value those higher that are more like us. So DEI is a way to _fix_ meritocracy, not to replace it.

to post comments

cutting off their nose

Posted Oct 28, 2025 15:38 UTC (Tue) by AntiISO (guest, #179626) [Link] (2 responses)

The main point is, the grand parent's comment assumption:

> But it is worth saying that "judge people by their abilities" is exactly what a good DEI program is about

is outright rejected by that manifesto, as "abilities" (a.k.a. merit) is argued to be just

> a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”

I have no interest in showing/arguing what I (and presumably anyone who hasn't been "hypernormalized" in certain echo chambers) humbly consider clear illogical fanatical bullshittery in that document, which I read in full the day it was made public btw. What's relevant here is that that is the set beliefs being operated on, as you yourself acknowledged, with the core one being that merit is apparently immeasurable.

cutting off their nose

Posted Oct 28, 2025 18:00 UTC (Tue) by stijn (subscriber, #570) [Link]

How much of this is people taking strong positions, engaging with worst faith interpretations of statements, focusing on the loudest and most polarising voices, and trying to win, shut down or diminish a debate rather than gain an understanding of why there is a debate, where the other person is coming from, and allowing for nuance? I have a hunch that there is common ground to be found, but when you write 'clear illogical fanatical bullshittery' what's the point of engaging? Have you read the contribution by twiens among these comments? It is observant.

cutting off their nose

Posted Oct 29, 2025 12:18 UTC (Wed) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

the core one being that merit is apparently immeasurable

I don't think there's an absolute “merit” scale where if you score highly everybody will be falling over themselves to roll out the red carpet for you. You can presumably be a priceless asset to project A based on your outstanding technical capabilities, vast experience, pleasant personality, and burning zeal to contribute to project A, and still be nobody in particular to project B based on exactly the same traits (possibly just because you're a crackshot Rust programmer but project B happens to be based on Java). Or your combination of traits may be just what project C is looking for while project D already has loads of other people who do what you're doing, and (while they'd be generally happy to have you chip in) would really welcome a different type of volunteer who could fill a real gap. So even if “merit” is in fact “measurable”, the same yardsticks don't seem to apply everywhere.

Props to the Python Software Foundation for standing up to its principles. Money is nice but it is more important to be welcoming and to encourage and enable people who want to contribute, regardless of their background.