Is Joomla a meritocracy, really?
After reading a forum discussion in the Joomla.org forums where Andrew Eddie said that Joomla is not a democracy, it's a meritocracy, I felt compelled to start a new discussion. Since I like the concept of free speach, I have decided to post my view here.
By literally and explicitly coining the definition of how Joomla is being governed, we have reached a point in history where we can actually compare the way the project is being run, by some ideals on how an actual meritocracy should work.
To keep all possibilities open, I would like to start us off by comparing us to other forms of government:
What I have seen most of lately, is complaints that regular Joomla "citizens" are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power. In that way, many are arguing that Joomla is somewhat like an illiberal democracy. Seems like OSM at least partially agrees on this one.
There has also been suggested that people recruiting to the different leading positions in the Joomla project has partiality to promoting long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, rather than basing promotion proposals on merit. In this case, drawing parallels to government by cronyism, seems obvious. When a "vote to promote" takes place, like the one linked to above, and it's clear that voting itself would be impossible if everyone who's biased was to refrain from voting, then it is atleast certain that in this gigantic open source project the leadership group is a tightly knit one.
Some have also suggested that kleptocracy is a significant part of the mix here, since some believe that people in the leadership are using their positions to actively extend their personal wealth and political power (see also cronyism).
If you are still convinced Joomla is primarily a clean-cut meritocracy, you're not only in denial, but maybe also unaware of one of the major criticisms against meritocracy: It bases promotion on past merits, not on for instance your talent for performing crucial future assignments, like for instance your ability to rebuild a community in crisis.
Joomla has grown very fast in a very short time. Maybe it's time to step back and evaluate our form of government and leadership?
By literally and explicitly coining the definition of how Joomla is being governed, we have reached a point in history where we can actually compare the way the project is being run, by some ideals on how an actual meritocracy should work.
To keep all possibilities open, I would like to start us off by comparing us to other forms of government:
What I have seen most of lately, is complaints that regular Joomla "citizens" are cut off from knowledge about the activities of those who exercise real power. In that way, many are arguing that Joomla is somewhat like an illiberal democracy. Seems like OSM at least partially agrees on this one.
There has also been suggested that people recruiting to the different leading positions in the Joomla project has partiality to promoting long-standing friends, especially by appointing them to positions of authority, rather than basing promotion proposals on merit. In this case, drawing parallels to government by cronyism, seems obvious. When a "vote to promote" takes place, like the one linked to above, and it's clear that voting itself would be impossible if everyone who's biased was to refrain from voting, then it is atleast certain that in this gigantic open source project the leadership group is a tightly knit one.
Some have also suggested that kleptocracy is a significant part of the mix here, since some believe that people in the leadership are using their positions to actively extend their personal wealth and political power (see also cronyism).
If you are still convinced Joomla is primarily a clean-cut meritocracy, you're not only in denial, but maybe also unaware of one of the major criticisms against meritocracy: It bases promotion on past merits, not on for instance your talent for performing crucial future assignments, like for instance your ability to rebuild a community in crisis.
Joomla has grown very fast in a very short time. Maybe it's time to step back and evaluate our form of government and leadership?
Views: 33
Tags: governance, joomla, leadership, osm
-
Comment by Amy Stephen on December 14, 2009 at 9:00am
-
I am uncomfortable with comparisons of governments and OSM. It just gets into an emotionally-charged discussion which ends up having little merit. The Joomla! project has nothing to do with my civil liberties.
I completely support Andrew Eddie on the Production Leadership Team at this time. I hope soon some of our long-term leaders step aside for new leaders, but we're not quite there. If we are going to pay developers (hopefully temporarily), he and Louis are good candidates. Andrew, in particular, has been contributing code towards 1.6 consistently since the Australia meeting in January of last year. He's got a family to feed and he is a long-time contributor to Joomla! who we will never fully compensate for his work. Period.
There is a complex community engagement problems we need to address. For starters, we need to bridge back people who want to continue as contributors in our community who have good code to offer. It would make me very happy to see a portion of nooku make it into 1.6. I love those filters, as one example. We need to rebuild relationships and create a very strong foundation of elders in our community.
We have seen huge improvements in the development area for contributors who are not on OSM and the Leadership Team to participate. The system isn't working perfectly, or even necessarily very good, yet, but they are very obviously working their asses off to try to make it easier for our community developers to contribute code, and I see them reviewing patches, and getting that work into core. As developers get involved and support their efforts here, it will get better and better.
We need new blood in our leadership positions. I'd like to see 2 year limits placed on these roles and rotation added, to keep things fresh. Andrew said in one of his responses on the forum that it's ironic that they are finding people to involve from this "storm." To me, it's not ironic at all, it's a benefit to an awakening community, and it's evidence we have common goals and common desires to see new ideas and more involvement and a stronger community evolve.
Torkil - I have a great deal of respect for your willingness over the years to question decisions and ideas all around you. You have been a good voice in this community. Your post raises interesting thoughts worth considering. I don't agree with your conclusions but I support your right to say it and I do not, and have not ever, questioned your support of Joomla!.
-
Comment by Emerson Rocha Luiz on December 14, 2009 at 9:24am -
On this year, JoomlaDay Brazil will be hosted byt the city that offer a better proposal ( with more people to help on organization, better place to do the presentations, etc) instead of a free poll with Forum users like last year (most part of who vote do not really do more than just go on event, or even not at least this).
So will be a bit more meritocracy than Democracy. I do not like it, but for avoid problens sometimes is need, at least untill the thinks go a bit better.
Democracy loses meaning with people who do not use it.
-
Comment by Klas on December 14, 2009 at 1:16pm -
OSM, especially it's president, is a nice example of Peters principle in full effect.
-
Comment by Torkil Johnsen on December 14, 2009 at 1:25pm -
@Amy: It was Andrew who underlined Joomla is based in meritocracy. I'm just pointing out stuff I have gotten references to over the past month that were brought up by other people of different opinions.
I am not against using meritocracy as a model, but from the news I am reading on many different websites, especially Joomla.org, I am starting to think that maybe one should sit down and discuss what exactly "meritocracy" really, and practically, implies in the Joomla context.
-
Comment by Torkil Johnsen on December 14, 2009 at 1:31pm
-
And @Amy: Seems to me like we agree on the important aspects:
1) New blood to the leadership. 2) Evaluate how the project is being run. And what goes without saying: 3) Fix what needs fixing.
-
-
1) New blood to the leadership. 2) Evaluate how the project is being run. And what goes without saying: 3) Fix what needs fixing.
Absolutely agree!
-
Comment by Klas on December 14, 2009 at 2:23pm
-
Meanwhile original thread in official forums was already closed. Long live alltogehter.
BTW - not even a day since this topic was posted and it already appears in Google search results.. That is the fastest I've ever seen.
-
-
Folks - with respect - this site is intended to pull our community together. Let's not make it be a place that the Joomla! project sees as a negative element. I started it to help us reconnect. I'm going to challenge everyone to find a way to help with 1.6 now. Let's spend the next month getting our event in Germany organized, making certain we did something good for 1.6, and thinking about ways to help our community. It's the holidays now.
-
Comment by Robert Vining on December 14, 2009 at 2:53pm -
Did anyone notice the working group forums were just removed from the joomla forums?
There used to be a development forum and a few others... now it's just translations and OSM.
WOW
-
Comment by Klas on December 14, 2009 at 3:19pm
-
What holidays, this is the busiest month of the year :)
On the topic of Meritocracy: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3850561/Open-Sour...
© 2012 Created by Amy Stephen.
You need to be a member of All Together, As A Whole to add comments!
Join All Together, As A Whole