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.orgThis 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.