|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
title: "Glossary"
|
|
|
401d07 |
permalink: /:path/:basename/index.html
|
|
|
401d07 |
layout: page
|
|
|
401d07 |
toc: true
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
#
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
In the free and open source software communities, meritocracy is one of the 3
|
|
|
401d07 |
main governance models in use and is likely the most popular, powerful, and
|
|
|
401d07 |
successful. However, there is still, at times, confusion over how exactly this
|
|
|
401d07 |
model works.
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
First and foremost, the basic tenet behind meritocracy is that people gain
|
|
|
401d07 |
merit by their actions and activities within the community. What actually
|
|
|
401d07 |
comprises that merit is determined by the pre-existing community itself, and so
|
|
|
401d07 |
there exists an internal, stabilizing feedback system that prevents a healthy
|
|
|
401d07 |
meritocracy from going askew. This basis of "what is merit" and "how one earns
|
|
|
401d07 |
it" is self-defined and known within the community and can, and does, vary from
|
|
|
401d07 |
community and project. For example, one FOSS project/community may value simple
|
|
|
401d07 |
coding capability above all, and thus heavy-coders will gain merit quickly,
|
|
|
401d07 |
whether they do so as volunteers or are paid to do so, and whether they work
|
|
|
401d07 |
well with others or not. Other communities value a healthy balance of coding
|
|
|
401d07 |
skills with consensus-based collaboration skills, whereas others also include
|
|
|
401d07 |
the individual's personal stake in the project (how much they are personally
|
|
|
401d07 |
involved and invested).
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
As the above shows, a meritocracy is not, therefore, a democracy proper but a
|
|
|
401d07 |
pseudo-republic. The wants and desires of the community are weighed in the
|
|
|
401d07 |
atmosphere of merit that enables access and control.
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
#
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
One practice of meritocracy is the consensus-based decision model. From
|
|
|
401d07 |
http:
|
|
|
401d07 |
decision-making is a group decision making process that seeks the consent of
|
|
|
401d07 |
all participants." In practice, it is different from a majority-vote-wins
|
|
|
401d07 |
approach. In the CentOS Project a discussion toward a decision follows this
|
|
|
401d07 |
process:
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. A proposal is put forth and a check for consensus is made.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. Consensus is signified through a +1 vote.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. A check is made for any dissent on the proposal.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. Reservations? State reservation, sometimes with a '-1' signifier
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. Reservations about the proposal are worked through, seeking consensus to resolve the reservations.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. A reservation is not a vote against the proposal, but may turn into a vote against if unresolved. It is often expressed with an initial -1 vote to indicate reservations and concerns. This indicates there is still discussion to be had.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. Stand aside? No comment, or state concerns without a -1 reservation; sometimes the '-0' signifier is used.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. This option allows a member to have issues with the proposal without choosing to block the proposal, by instead standing aside with a +/-0 vote.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. The stated concerns may influence other people to have or release reservations.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. Block? Vote '-1' with reasons for the block.
|
|
|
401d07 |
1. This is a complete block on a proposal, refusing to let it pass. A block is a -1 vote and must be accompanied with substantive arguments that are rooted in the merit criteria of the Project -- protecting the community, the upstream, technical reasons, and so forth.
|
|
|
401d07 |
|
|
|
401d07 |
Block (-1) votes used as a veto are typically used only when consensus cannot otherwise be met, and are effectively a veto that any sitting Board member can utilize with sufficient substantiation.
|