The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 26, 2017 15:40 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870)
In reply to: The trouble with FreeBSD by mjg59
Parent article: The trouble with FreeBSD

> Meritocracy was meant to be a satirical concept so clearly wrongheaded that nobody could think it was a good idea.

That sounds interesting but is news to me. Do you have a source for that?

> We don't understand community dynamics and the process of software development well enough to say with absolute certainty that a given set of metrics is objectively the correct measure, and as a result we cannot provide a meaningful definition of merit.

Just because there is no single set of metrics that can measure it, does not imply that we can't define it meaningful. Think of happiness: there is no single set of metrics for it, that does not mean that we cannot define it or measure aspects of it.

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 26, 2017 15:48 UTC (Thu) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link] (2 responses)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 26, 2017 19:55 UTC (Thu) by spaetz (guest, #32870) [Link] (1 responses)

Thank you very much. I should have searched wikipedia before asking...

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 26, 2017 23:44 UTC (Thu) by smitty_one_each (subscriber, #28989) [Link]

> "The word was adopted into the English language with none of the negative connotations that Young intended it to have and was embraced by supporters of the philosophy."

It's almost as though Michael Young encountered a meritocracy.

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 26, 2017 17:02 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (5 responses)

Personal happiness is something that an individual can quantify. Merit isn't.

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 27, 2017 11:37 UTC (Fri) by liam (guest, #84133) [Link] (4 responses)

I realize this is very off-topic, so i won't pursue it beyond the asking of this question.

Why do you think people can "quantify" their own happiness better than, say, someone who knows them very well?

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 27, 2017 15:09 UTC (Fri) by bronson (subscriber, #4806) [Link] (1 responses)

I don't think mjg59 made any sort of claim. Where do you see discussion about individuals gauging happiness vs people knowing them very well?

(and, agreed, this doesn't sound worth pursuing)

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 28, 2017 6:31 UTC (Sat) by liam (guest, #84133) [Link]

Hi Bronson, I'll just reply to this one, and if you wish to discuss it further, let me know and we can continue elsewhere.

I read his post as a statement that made two claims: 1. happiness is quantifiable (i assume he means beyond a binary state), 2. only the person who had the experience in question can say if it corresponded to the sign "happy".
The reason for asking the question was to clarify my understanding of mjg's position during the following (I'm including the first quote for context)

[mjg]A project may choose to define "merit" based on numbers of lines of code, or on number of introduced bugs, or on benchmark improvements. A project may also choose to define "merit" based on ability to recruit a wider range of developers into a project, to work well with others, to avoid discouraging involvement by permitting a toxic atmosphere to exist. There's no way you can objectively assert that the former will result in a better project in the long run - we simply do not have the experience, understanding or results to make that claim.

[spaetz]Just because there is no single set of metrics that can measure it, does not imply that we can't define it meaningful. Think of happiness: there is no single set of metrics for it, that does not mean that we cannot define it or measure aspects of it.

[mjg]Personal happiness is something that an individual can quantify. Merit isn't.

I mentioned "other people" because this discussion is, i think/hope, about what organizing principles help to enable a successful project.
Making up that discussion are, i believe, a few more basic questions. Is it right for a community to create a set of (membership) rules which are, or can be, exclusionary? If yes, what kind of exclusions are ethical? Can we create a set of rules that are strongly correlated (essentially, causal) with successful communities?
From the above quotes, mjg's reasoning as to why one quantity was measurable (at least by someone), but not the other, was unclear. Since he seemed to accept the idea that we can measure emotional states, i wanted to know why such measurements can only be made by an individual. His answer suggests an epistemology which includes a belief in something like noumena (or maybe qualia might be a better fit).

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 27, 2017 18:45 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

Someone external can only judge happiness based on behaviour, and said behaviour may not be a true representation of an individual's internal state.

The trouble with FreeBSD

Posted Jan 28, 2017 3:57 UTC (Sat) by liam (guest, #84133) [Link]

Alright. Thanks for the explanation. I disagree, and think that's a simplistic (or maybe just optimistic?) understanding of human psychology, but I still very much appreciate your polite answer.