CCF Archive Site

In related events:

Linux Torvalds is temporarily leaving his role of head of Linux kernel development due to being called out on his alleged bad and disrespectful behavior toward other developers participating in development.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-takes-a-break-from-linux/

Kind of simultaneously, a weird manifesto (which Linus T is a signatory of) has been released on the web:

https://postmeritocracy.org

This manifesto basically seems to say that everyone working in SW development is deserving of respect and deserves to be respected regardless of experience level, specialization, or even capabilities. It says more or less that "meritocracy" should not be used as a value or goal.

The author of this manifesto is a person named   Coraline Ada Ehmke who is an outspoken open source advocate. Who is also a SJW and transgender. And who apparently had big fights with Torvalds over his management of Linux kernel development.

The manifesto starts like this:

Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.

But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”

I'll reflect on this leading statement:

When I started working as an engineer 30+ years ago I heard a manager say that their organization was a "meritocracy". I took it exactly as stated: if you did good work and created value, you had merit, and you could expect respect and rewards based upon the value of your contribution.

When I heard this I was humbled. I took the statement as a self evident given. If I wanted respect in the workplace I needed to generate it through my work.

This manifesto immediately distorts the idea of achievement and turns it into a political grievance against those who have current power and/or those who have actually achieved things professionally in the same context.

Overall the manifesto is political - the concepts of free market, competition, and value creation are not uttered at all.

The thing also goes on to say:

We do not believe that our value as human beings is intrinsically tied to our value as knowledge workers. Our professions do not define us; we are more than the work we do.
...
We can add the most value as professionals by drawing on the diversity of our identities, backgrounds, experiences, and perspectives. Homogeneity is an antipattern.
...
We can be successful while leading rich, full lives. Our success and value is not dependent on exerting all of our energy on contributing to software.

In an overall life context this is correct.

However, in the scope of a software development job, you're rightfully respected by the measure of how much work you put out. If others are depending on you to complete a job or task on time and accurately, it doesn't matter if you "resist", if you're "woke", if you treat animals kindly, if you volunteer.

This manifesto seems to be saying that you should not be judged at all, ever, by job output.

I'll reflect on these ideas in my own case:

I was a "top", hard core software developer in C, assembly, C++, and Delphi, at many system levels - libraries and real time to application screens - for a period of about 20 years. I was good enough to compete for that period as an independent contractor in a local market that has been extremely hostile to my kind of  work style. Finally the market changed against my talent set and I stopped looking for the work.

Would I expect to get any respect whatsoever as a developer if I just walked into a software development shop today and started working? I would expect to earn it, not have it handed to me. The answer, a flat NO.

I'm saying that I would have NOTHING AT PRESENT to contribute to, say, R database analysis, or Android development.

I also have the detriment of being well outside the zone of caring of SJWs. Their manifesto is about them, not me, a white older male. They would consider me "privileged" because I was older and had prior experience. In fact my experience has been that age and experience are used against you as reasons not to hire.

If I had a hard time in finding or keeping a job today, I suppose I could fall back on these tenets. For all the good it would do.

The scope of technical work and rewards for it are quite narrow. You do THAT work well, you get respect. In no other way and for no other reason should you get respect in a tech job.

Lastly, people that act like Linux Torvalds are VERY common at the OS kernel and systems level. They are all impatient, gruff, and demanding.

Because the work is both abstract and very difficult to understand and the work product is hard to test completely. When you work on stuff that detailed you get "nervous" about the end result, and I think that contributes to shortness of temper.

I think the manifesto should be tested as an effective development organization building tool in this way:

Assemble a commercial software development team consisting of undocumented ("illegal") immigrants; homeless; long time laid off; and recovering drug addicts. PLUS a few gender and racially diverse experienced developers. But task EVERYONE. Each undocumented, each homeless must be assigned a meaningful role.

In other words, assemble a team where even current development skill is considered a granted privilege and not something attained or achieved. Give any conscious person the benefit of the doubt.

And appoint a journeyman/woman/wyman/whatever project manager. Someone with maybe 1+ month's professional or open source development experience.  Not a mean guru like a Linus T. An ordinary developer. Let's not be exclusive or patriarchal.

Then give the team a commercially valuable task to complete. Such as designing and building an app from specs. They should be able to do it. Almost everyone has a smart phone these days. There are quite a few billion around the world by now. So everyone can be assumed to have basic tech operational skills such as being able to read computer screens and respond with input.

Give them 6 mo- 1 year.

Judge the team's work output by the manifesto.

And then try to sell the result in the open market.

Whoever wrote the absurd manifesto is too left-leaning even for me  .

 

I was writing in absurdity taking the ideas from the manifesto and showing how they could be implemented in real life.

What I find the most disturbing about the mindset behind the manifesto is the concept that experience, talent and achievement are all equivalent to privilege. You aren't allowed to be counted for your work. Everything you made or made or yourself is privilege.

This is more communist slop. Everyone deserves the same thing regardless of skill and ability? This is all part of this crap called Equality of Outcome:

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

We are all equal and deserve the same thing? How exactly does that work. So if a person sits on their fat ass all day doing nothing they deserve the same thing as people who work all day long? This is illogical and makes no sense. So the person who contributes and adds value has the same value as someone who does nothing?

I quote their crap:

"Meritocracy is a founding principle of the open source movement, and the ideal of meritocracy is perpetuated throughout our field in the way people are recruited, hired, retained, promoted, and valued.

But meritocracy has consistently shown itself to mainly benefit those with privilege, to the exclusion of underrepresented people in technology. The idea of merit is in fact never clearly defined; rather, it seems to be a form of recognition, an acknowledgement that “this person is valuable insofar as they are like me.”"

So what exactly is my privilege? That I am white?

That I went to school and worked full time the entire time that I was school? That my ancestors came from Europe with NOTHING and than proceeded to work in ship yards, coal mines, steel work and home construction for pennies? That we were literally dirt poor and pulled ourselves with NO HANDOUTS from the govmt?

So who exactly are these under represented people in technology? Women and minorities? Last time I checked NOBODY was keeping them out. They CANT and DONT WANT TO DO IT. That is the bottomline but at the same time I am supposed to value them equally despite the fact they contribute nothing? You want to be in technology, well than you put in the time and do it.

I like The Gorns idea of putting a team together and letting the chips fall where they may. Lets get a broad section of people - some women, some minorities, some of this and some of that. Than let them SELF organize and than let NOBODY do any more than anyone else.

So that means if some of the team does nothing than the entire team does nothing. Why should some work harder than others? If we are all valued the same and that means even if person A works harder than person B that they will both get the same thing. So why should person A work harder than person B? If everyone is going to get the same thing than there is no reason to work harder.

Its like grading along the curve in school to equalize things. Eventually the people that are getting straight A's realize that they aren't getting what they deserve so they stop doing it.

We have the same thing going on in NJ - the NJ State Supreme Court ordered last year that EVERY town in NJ has to provide low income housing. Affluent towns have to have a percent of low incoming housing because its not fair. That non-rich people have a right to the goodies in the rich towns.

I posted this at the time - so I worked and killed myself to be able to buy into an affluent town and now the govmt is telling me that my work and effort doesn't matter and than someone who has not EARNED the right to live in that town has the right to live in my affluent town. I tell you what - you have the right to live in my town IF YOU CAN BUY INTO THE TOWN.

If you can't afford to live there than you don't. Its that simple.

The manifesto treats past accomplishment and professional capabilities as privilege. Anything you have coming in that makes your participation uniquely valuable is privilege.

I like The Gorns idea of putting a team together and letting the chips fall where they may. Lets get a broad section of people - some women, some minorities, some of this and some of that. Than let them SELF organize and than let NOBODY do any more than anyone else.

The "manifesto" has economics as a driving force entirely absent. Not one place does it mention that markets or profitability have any bearing. I tried to invent a model workplace that SJWs would approve of that shows a test bed of their idea.

The idea is that you don't let a privileged white male with loads of experience like a Linus Torvalds to distort the economics or the performance. Unless, say, you wish to literally enslave him and his work product with no credit and let all of the weaker members get a free ride. A good case could be made that he owes the community just that.

The only thing that makes communist manifestos even remotely possible is the contribution of supposedly "entitled" senior people and high-output workers who create the backbone of profitability. The revenue allows the purple haired SJWs to prattle about how they're treated and whine about inequality.

IE: without the heterosexual, privileged white male Linus Torvalds there would be no Linux and no organization of purple haired trannies in place who would whine about being abused by the man who created the entire empire. In fact the open source industry would be considerably smaller and more fragmented. The weaklings would be working as baristas at Starbucks cleaning up the homeless toilets.

https://www.zdnet.com/article/linus-torvalds-and-linux-code-of-conduct-myths/

Smells like propaganda spin to me.