On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 02:00:36PM +0200, tilt! wrote:
> Hello KatolaZ and Rainer,

[cut]

>
> Using the amount of contributions as a metric that decides over the
> influence an individual can exert in future decision-making of a project
> means discarding the fact that contributions can be "bloat" and that
> developments can turn out to be devastating mistakes. Such
> developments, by the time they occurred, can be extremely hard to revert
> in a meritocracy that uses such a metric.
>

[cut]

> I think the fundamental mistake in such a meritocracy is that a
> *quantitative* metric (for example the count of contributions) is used
> to decide a *qualitative* property (namely the decisive influence in a
> project).

I agree with your points, and I have never thought that a bare count
of lines of codes should be the currency of a meritocratic community
of software developers. As in many other aspects of human activity,
length is rarely correlated with *power* or *skill*, and is thus a
poor indicator of performance. There is no doubt that anybody who has
contributed 100 lines to the Linux kernel might deserve more respect
than me (who have contributed 0 lines), but it is undeniable that just
a few lines of code in some parts of the kernel are worth much more
than thousands of lines in other sections.


>
> One one last note, I more generally think that in the wider field of
> science, phenomena such as commercialization of research and "Duh
> Science" are powered by similar mechanisms.

And in fact I pointed out that deciding which facts are meritorious
and which are not is a matter of discussion and debate :)

HND

KatolaZ

--
[ Enzo Nicosia aka KatolaZ --- GLUG Catania -- Freaknet Medialab ]
[ me [at] katolaz.homeunix.net -- http://katolaz.homeunix.net -- ]
[ GNU/Linux User:#325780/ICQ UIN: #258332181/GPG key ID 0B5F062F ]
[ Fingerprint: 8E59 D6AA 445E FDB4 A153 3D5A 5F20 B3AE 0B5F 062F ]