On Tue, Aug 04, 2015 at 12:09:31PM +0200, tilt! wrote:
> Hello there,
>
> KatolaZ wrote on 04/08/2015 at 09:36 CEST:
> >[...]
> >The free software community is probably one of the last truly
> >democratic and meritocratic social environments.
>
> While I appreciate your idealism a lot and am happy to hear people still
> (or again?) talk like that, I feel the urge to point out two
> implications that I, from my personal experience, find problematic:

I just want to point out that my response was motivated by the (false)
assumption that a PhD was needed to hack the Linux kernel :)

[cut]

>    In short: Free software is not a some sort of an alternative
>    "environment" that comforts some psychological needs of its
>    participants, free software is the only acceptable way of
>    distributing software, because proprietary software is not an
>    alternative at all.

No need to say that I absolutely agree on this :)

>

>    (2) The "meritocratic" approach of self-organization unfortunately
>    tends to converge into counterproductive elitism, not so much by the
>    ways it operates intrinsically, but due to the interactions with
>    outside systems, economically and psychologically.

>

[cut]

>

>    Short: A (scientific) meritocracy is vulnerable to (scientific) fads.

>
>

[cut]

> Short: Having a (scientific) meritocracy is not a good thing per
> se.

Well, everything that has to do with humans would ultimately depend on
the many weaknesses of human nature. I am convinced that *pure*
scientific meritocracy has nothing to do with elitarism, and is thus a
very good thing per se. As a matter of fact, the most appreciated and
influential scientists (and computer scientists) have always been the
most humble and modest humans of their times. If your arguments are
solid, they will speak on your behalf. Shouting will only diminish
their and your strength.

My point is that binding meritocracy to titles is even more dangerous
(and more medieval) than letting it emerge from facts. We should then
decide which facts qualify as meritorious and which ones do not, but
this is again subjective and prone to endless discussions.

I am convinced that there is no way of being universally appreciated
for your actions, in any field. Whatever you do, there might be
hundreds of people who agree with you, but there will still be
millions more who disagree, with reasonable arguments, or who simply
don't care. But this has never stopped cultural and technical
minorities (like the free software community) from emerging and
thriving, whatever might the word "thriving" mean for a small
minority.

If I have to choose a minority to belong to, I undoubtedly prefer a
meritocratic one :)

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 ]