you sound like a conspiracy theorist. it is changing an inappropriate word, not shifting control over the entire company Mozilla. i doubt you care about diversity or improving the quality of the open source project
your arguments are hypberolic in some cases, as changing or clarifying a word or sentence even is not "remake(ing) a software project". and I think the word meritocracy is vague, a overarching word used to describe many things to many people, mozilla should instead simply be more clear about what that means. what is the "playing field", that itself is a metaphor for sports and physical ability I guess. How will the ability of those chosen for participation under this meritocracy be judged
Really? People who interpret 'meritocracy' in a narrow, little known historical context, as being a conspiracy against miniorities, rather than it's currently accepted form, sound like conspiracy theorists.
that is quite the stretch. thinking a word should be updated or clarified does not make me a "conspiracy theorist". What am I conspiring against? people fighting so hard against a simple change to make the sentence more inclusive are just fighting to keep their antiquated system of bias in place
They are proposing removing meritocracy based on their political view that certain classes of people will never be able to participate on a level playing field.
They are the ones advancing a narrative of exclusion, telling individuals in whole swaths that they can never compete in open source projects.
They have no evidence to support this of course, just what they were taught in their sociology classes at uni.
In reality though they are the ones pushing outdated bias.
and yet Mozilla put out a proposal to discuss this, not something people just do for trivial matters. so they clearly feel strongly about it, but this dude can't?
also, there's no need for the ad hominem attack. if he is a conspiracist, it should be easy to point out a more simple explanation.
Meritocracy is only an inappropriate word if you believe that certain groups of people will never be able to participate on a level playing field.
That notion is of course incredibly condescending towards members of those groups.
The goal should be to advance everyone in the meritocracy through outreach and training, not to abandon the value of meritocracy.
The proposal itself makes it clear the change is merely for cosmetic purposes, to make certain people feel better, not actually increase diversity.
If you care about diversity you should oppose the notion that certain groups of people are incapable of participating on their own terms.
This is about empowering a small but loud group of political activists who want to remake a software project to fit their fringe world view.
Do you care more about affirming their politics or the quality of software?