
Code of Merit: A meritocratic approach to project management (2016) - _Marak_
https://github.com/rosarior/Code-of-Merit/blob/master/CODE_OF_MERIT.md
======
jawns
Do you know who's going to gravitate toward projects with a Code of Merit
instead of a Code of Conduct?

People who are ostracized by projects with a Code of Conduct.

Or, to put it another way, if you're a jerk and you argue with other
contributors about an on-topic issue in a jerky way, then under a Code of
Merit, you still come out on top as long as you're technically correct (the
best kind of correct!), even if it leaves other contributors feeling put down.

Granted, there is some overlap. For example, both the Code of Merit and most
codes of conduct disallow disparaging remarks based on protected
characteristics. But the Code of Merit disallows them because they're
considered irrelevant to the project, whereas codes of conduct disallow them
because they're affronts to dignity.

I do take issue with many codes of conduct in the tech space, because I think
they tend to be written in a bubble world where everyone assumes that everyone
else thinks just like them, but a Code of Merit sounds like it's even more
problematic.

~~~
crispyambulance
I have never understood why people feel strongly about "Code of Conduct"
statements. It seems insane to me that someone would profoundly object to
guidelines that effectively say "don't be an asshole".

But it happens!

There are people rage-quitting stackoverflow/stackexchange communities
expressly because of they can't abide with the new initiatives/CoC that say
one has to be nice and get along with others.

I guess this is yet another manifestation of that impulse. Maybe someday
someone will write up a psychological analysis of this kind of behavior. I
sure don't understand it.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
I think it's mostly an objection to authoritarianism, to intolerance under the
guise of tolerance, and specifically to the idea that there is a right to not
be offended, which implies the right of anyone to prevent speech simply by
declaring that they are offended by it, which is seen as a major danger to
society and in particular to minorities who don't have the luck of being
recognized as a protected class by those who push for these CoCs.

Or to put it more succinctly: People see a bait and switch. The superficial
language doesn't really seem all that objectionable, but if you look into the
ideology behind it, you might find they have a very specific idea of what
"don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.

~~~
crispyambulance

        > you might find they have a very specific idea of what "don't be an asshole" means that maybe doesn't quite match what you'd expect.
    

I think that's a compelling reason to be skeptical of CoC's but I can't come
up with an example where I would be surprised at what "don't be an asshole"
actually means to the anyone that wrote the CoC's that seem rather common.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Well, I guess it starts even in the CoC itself it you read it closely?

For example, it says "Examples of unacceptable behavior by participants
include: The use of sexualized language or imagery [...]". That is codifying a
very specific value, namely one of sex negativity. If you are sex positive,
you are at risk of being labeled an asshole for that. (And mind you, that
quote continues "[...] and unwelcome sexual attention or advances", so it is
clearly in addition to what could be reasonably considered a neutral "respect
others' personal boundaries" sort of "don't be an asshole").

Then, there is this whole problem of not considering people who have
deficiencies of sorts with regards to social interaction, and it seems to me
that that is very much part of the ideology. Try to read the kernel CoC from
the viewpoint of an autist, and try to reflect on how included you feel from
that perspective when you are essentially told "because we want to have a
welcoming environment for everyone, we shun people like you".

And more broadly, not necessarily directly tied to the specific authors (I
just don't know the specific authors well enough to be sure), occurrences like
this come to my mind: [https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-
richard...](https://www.berkeleyside.com/2017/07/21/kpfa-cancels-richard-
dawkins-speech-tweets-islam)

"Inappropriate" and "offensive" are so subjective that you could argue the
"code" doesn't really codify anything, it just is a tool to use and to
interpret as you see fit if you have the power to do so, while claiming that
it's somehow a more objective judgement that you arrive at based on "rules
that have to be followed".

~~~
pseudalopex
Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages quasi-
professional environment isn't the place for it.

Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism?
Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have
started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of
organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar
code.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> Someone can be "sex positive" and believe that a public global all-ages
> quasi-professional environment isn't the place for it.

Well, yeah, sure. But someone else can be sex positive and feel like using
sexualized language, can't they? I mean, I am obviously not saying that the
CoC should say that everyone should be forced to use sexualized language. And
the fact that you can be a sex positive person and still feel like sexual
things are more of a personal thing for you, say, doesn't change the fact that
banning people from using sexualized language is sex negative, does it? Some
sex positive people feel like anal sex isn't their thing. Making a law against
anal sex is still sex negative, isn't it?

If you don't feel like using sexualized language, sure, more power to you as
far as you expressing yourself is concerned. And really, as far as expressing
myself publicly I'd generally be among those, it's not really my thing, at
least not currently. What I object to is the authoritarian style of enforcing
a particular set of values that have no direct relation to the goal of the
project. And even moreso if it's done supposedly in the name of "being more
inclusive".

If you are suggesting that someone could be sex positive and think that
sexualized language should be banned in a "public global all-ages quasi-
professional environment", really, I don't think so. Sex positivism in a
nutshell is the view that there is nothing bad or shameful about sex per se.
It's a thing many people do and enjoy, just as many people do and enjoy eating
ice cream (and others don't, and that's fine, too). If that's your view, I
don't really see how you could go from there to supporting a ban on using
related language, pretty much no matter what the context. Either you think sex
should be a taboo or you don't!?

> Which parts of the code do you think are unwelcoming to people with autism?
> Most that I know are neutral about it or are pleased that neurotypicals have
> started to recognize the benefits of explicit rules. I know of a couple of
> organizations where someone on the spectrum led the adoption of a similar
> code.

Do they prefer rules over no rules or explicit rules over implicit rules? If
there is a rule that is enforced against you anyway, it's probably better to
have it spelled out explicitly (than to be surprised by the enforcement of a
rule you hadn't picked up on). But that does not justify introducing any
particular new rule, only writing down what's already there anyway. And even
then writing down what's already there does not justify those rules, it at
best creates the opportunity to reflect on the appropriateness of those rules,
and to possibly throw some of them out for good. I would think the objection
is to being held accountable to rules they aren't aware of, not so much to not
having rules.

Also, I'd be curious how similar that code really was. For example, "other
behaviors that they deem inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" is
very much the opposite of "explicit". It's so vague that if you think about it
you realize there isn't actually any rule there. The only thing that's really
there is the "rule" that the maintainer gets to decide the actual rules on the
spot.

Edit: As for something not actually being a rule, I think this is a good test:
Could you possibly use it to defend yourself against an accusation? No matter
what you did, you could never justify your behaviour by saying "What I did was
not deemed inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful by the
maintainer(s)".

~~~
pseudalopex
"Sex positivity" doesn't mean you have to view sex just like ice cream. Is it
also authoritarian to allow only one of them in the office?

The people I know on the autistic spectrum understand that there are never "no
rules". With respect to language like "other behaviors", they understand the
concepts of loopholes and judgment calls. They also understand that the people
in charge can _always_ make new rules even if the rules don't say so.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
> "Sex positivity" doesn't mean you have to view sex just like ice cream.

I don't think I said anything about sex being "just like ice cream", because
that doesn't really mean anything. I specifically pointed to treating it as a
taboo subject, and in that regard I would think the general consensus is that
sex positivity implies considering sex to be just as non-taboo as ice cream.

> Is it also authoritarian to allow only one of them in the office?

Yes?

Just to remind you, none of this is about getting on people's nerves with
topics they don't want to discuss or intentionally making people uncomfortable
for the sake of making them uncomfortable or anything of that sort. This is
about a ban on a certain kind of language, and only that particular kind.
Isn't it strange that there is no ban on talking about death? Also a taboo for
many people, also something you can make people really uncomfortable with, and
also something some people don't mind. But for some reason, sex is banned
explicitly, death is not.

> The people I know on the autistic spectrum understand that there are never
> "no rules".

I think you misunderstood my point. When I wrote "no rules" that was meant as
"within a given scope", not as a global qualifier of "a world without rules".

> With respect to language like "other behaviors", they understand the
> concepts of loopholes and judgment calls.

The problem isn't the "other behaviors", it's the "deem[ed] inappropriate,
threatening, offensive, or harmful". Those are highly subjective criteria.
It's like writing criminal law that says "The judge can sentence the defendant
if they don't like what the defendant did". And doubly so for autistic people,
given that your best chance at avoiding punishment is to guess what the other
person finds inappropriate, threatening, or offensive.

> They also understand that the people in charge can always make new rules
> even if the rules don't say so.

Which is besides the point. First of all, it's trivially true that people who
do have power can use it, but that doesn't automatically justify their
actions. But more importantly, none of what I wrote is about whether new rules
can be made, but about the fact that applying new punishment rules
retroactively is unfair, and that non-rules such as "[...] or to ban
temporarily or permanently any contributor for other behaviors that they deem
inappropriate, threatening, offensive, or harmful" are necessarily de-facto
applied retroactively as the rule itself does not specify the offence.

Proper criminal law specifies in the law itself what the offence is and how it
is going to be punished. The point is (a) that it's up to public consensus to
decide what is punishable and what is not, not to some judge, and (b) you are
supposed to be able to look into the law to find out whether what you want to
do is forbidden or not. None of that precludes new laws being added. But you
cannot be punished for things that weren't forbidden yet when you did them.

------
mabbo
> Individual characteristics, including but not limited to, body, sex, sexual
> preference, race, language, religion, nationality, or political preferences
> are irrelevant in the scope of the project and will not be taken into
> account concerning your value or that of your contribution to the project.

This sounds good, but a clause like this can easily backfire. What happens if
a high ranking member is (whether they know it or not) a bigot or sexist?
Anytime someone tries to challenge them calling out their behavior, they're
likely to point to this Code and say "stop making this about gender/race as
that violates the code of merit". They can use the very rules meant to stop
them as a weapon to silence those who would criticize.

The document presumes good intentions by all those participating. Good
intentions don't work- mechanisms do. I see no mechanisms here.

~~~
cabraca
you have to assume good intentions. otherwise it will end in a mexican
standoff, everyone with weapons drawn and waiting for someone to fire first.

but to get to your point: on a merit based system every reason to decline a
contribution should be based on the contribution, not on the contributer.
everyone should be able to validate those reasons. if you got a sexist and he
declines your contribution with a sexist reason that should lead to
consequences for him. thats what your quoted line entails. the high ranking
member violated it because he took your sex/gender into account when
considiering your contribution. did he decline with racist remarks? he
violated it again because he took your race into account. for me that would be
a far better system because it does not put the control in the hands of the
few maintainers, it puts the control in the hands of the whole community.

~~~
geofft
What are "sexist remarks"? Is allowing men to be rude because that's the
social stereotype of productive men, and telling equally rude women that
they're shrill and need to tone it down and be less emotional, a sexist
remark? It only overtly references the individual contributor, not their
gender.

~~~
cabraca
why allow someone to be rude? we are professionals, we should not be rude to
another.

> Is [...] telling [...] women that they're shrill and need to tone it down
> and be less emotional, a sexist remark?

if it targets all women i would say yes. if its in a discussion and alice IS
too emotional and shrill i would say no (but its badly phrased).

everyone should be able to take a step back from a discussion and reflect. am
i too emotional? did i maybe take a wrong turn? dont take everything personal.
sometimes text does sound angry and agressive, but wasn't meant to be. people
are not good at communication. allow some room for misinterpretation.

~~~
geofft
So there is a gray area. Are you permitted under the code of merit to ask in
good faith, "Is Bob acting like this towards all women?" It seems like if the
answer is "No, just Alice," you are the one who brought up unrelated
demographic topics and accusations of bias and have violated the Code—which
means the code serves to have a chilling effect on good-faith discussions
about whether the Code is being violated by established, "senior"
contributors.

~~~
cabraca
thats where "you have to assume good intentions" comes in. if you ask that in
good faith, to get a clear picture of bob and resolve misinterpretations, no
harm is done. i dont care where you ask that, but you can do that. the CoM
does not prevent discussing those topics (e.g. to resolve misunderstandings).
it just states that they are irrelevant for "your value or that of your
contribution".

~~~
geofft
So at the point where you have a good-faith question about whether someone is
violating the Code and harming the project, you must assume good intentions?
Do you expect a sexist Bob to say out loud, in a project space, "Yup, I'm
judging contributions on things other than technical merit" (especially when
Bob can just tweet "Broads can't code lol" and it's defined as a thing you
can't pay attention to in the project)?

Why not just replace the code with "No one can possibly behave poorly for the
project, just believe everyone" and be done with it? Seems equally effective.

------
rectang
The author who coined the term "meritocracy", Michael Young, meant it as
satire.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rise_of_the_Meritocracy](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".

~~~
brobdingnagians
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.

------
ergo14
I don't get why this would be an alternative - those two can and should
supplement eachother.

~~~
pjc50
No, this is clearly a direct contradiction of a standard code of conduct; its
intent appears to be to rule all the behaviour of the participants, especially
the established ones, out of consideration.

~~~
ergo14
Please point me to paragraph that says something like that.

------
alkonaut
This to me looks like the "all lives matter" equvialent. It's basically an
idea that no one can object to on face value, because there is obviously
nothing objectionable about it, but when being presented as an _alternative_
to something else it makes it completely different.

This type of code will be chosen by the kind of people that were angry about
the linux CoC. So sadly even though this document has nothing obviously wrong
with it, it will be a huge red flag on a project.

~~~
raxxorrax
Like the CoC was a red flag for others. Given, I doubt that anything
significant will change with or without its adoption. It was political though
and therefore leaves a bad taste.

It is something, but it is clearly not about inclusion or anything. Not that
harassment was ever a significant problem in any repository or mailing list I
visited.

I think a general request for being polite is always a good thing. Mandatory
behavior expectations are not. And this CoC reeks like it.

------
xyproto
I think the whole concept of "final say" is both poorly defined and poorly
thought out. Should people not be allowed to speak their mind? Should they not
be free to do work (merit) in the direction of their choosing? It should be up
to the project owners if the work should be included in their project or not,
but "final say"? Pffft.

------
geofft
If you actually believe in meritocracy, it seems like a problem that the
Contributor Covenant is in use by several high-profile projects that have had
no noticeable loss of technical quality or failure since adopting it, and the
Code of Merit is in use by ... no one. (Google the phrase in the README to
confirm that.)

So, the meritocratic option is to adopt the Contributor Covenant and the
incident-handling practices it comes with, which empirically help produce
great projects. The only reason to adopt the Code of Merit is ideological
attraction to its worldview outweighing the desire for a better technical
project.

~~~
bassman9000
To be fair, according to the page, it was created 4 years ago. Google and
other were already large and successful before that, so it's highly unlikely
it's due to said document. And inertia can explain why it hasn't affected the
quality yet (if ever).

------
pferde
If you have to write this down and formalize it, you have already lost.

~~~
brobdingnagians
In a private context yes, but in a public context where there are outside
influences and attacks, it can be useful to have group norms that are
explicit. It tends to attract people who believe implicitly in the norms. It
is a way of signaling overtly what sort of culture the original maintainers
possess.

------
play2computers
While this is an interesting idea, I'm not sure such an approach is going to
work long term. This establishes that nothing outside of the project has an
impact on the project itself. To make a rather extreme example (Godwin says
hi), if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object
to him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would
not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line?

~~~
xeeeeeeeeeeenu
>if Hitler picked up coding, a code-of-merit based project wouldn't object to
him contributing to it, while most of the code of conducts I've seen would
not. So it really comes down to: where do we draw the line?

There's no need to draw the line. As long as Hitler writes good code and
behaves well on project's mailing lists, issue trackers etc., I would have no
problem with him being a project member.

~~~
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC
Could anyone who is downvoting here explain why?

Why should we prevent someone from contributing something good, thus hurting
ourselves in the process, because they otherwise do something bad?

------
pjc50
This establishes the "dictator for life" idiom without bothering with the
figleaf of "benevolent".

~~~
brobdingnagians
Not really; it just establishes that people who do work and create things of
value have some kind of claim to continuing that work and controlling its
growth.

The alternative is probably the "tyranny of the outside majority". You can't
do things _other_ people, unrelated to your work, don't like.

~~~
detaro
That's not the alternative. E.g. the Linux CoC explicitly only governs
activity inside the project, or while representing the project (the latter is
an interesting but IMHO necessary scope problem). The board tasked with
enforcing it is entirely built from high-ranking contributors.

