[ubuntu-in] Ubuntu: meritocracy not democracy (article)

[K Ramnarayan]

Hi

This is with respect to the recent / and old debate on Ubunt, in this case the 
article is posted in full. Since it makes for good reading

Ubuntu: meritocracy not democracy
Ubuntu community manager Jono Bacon explains
By Jono Bacon
http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/ubuntu-meritocracy-
not-democracy-695040

Friday at 10:15 BST | Tell us what you think [ 9 comments ]
jono-bacon

Jono Bacon is a musician, writer and software developer. He's also the Ubuntu 
Community Manager, though the opinions expressed here are entirely his own

<>

Ubuntu has many recognisable traits, but one of the best is its reputation for 
working with its community.

Since Mark Shuttleworth forged the original team in 2004, the Ubuntu community 
has exploded in size, spawning a diverse range of teams across the globe.

Underlining this sense of community was Mark's eagerness to embrace 
transparency, putting in place open governance and tools, a code of conduct 
and an invitation for volunteers to join the ranks of the project.

Recently, however, there was some controversy surrounding this community 
ethos. It kicked off when Canonical, Ubuntu's primary sponsor, announced a 
refreshed brand for the project. A new lick of paint was applied to the logo, 
wallpaper and more, and new colour schemes, textures, photographic treatments 
and other artistic flourishes were shared with the wider community.

As part of the brand development, key members of the community were flown to 
London to work with the design team, and senior community governance boards 
were told about the brand before it was publicly announced.

Ubuntu: meritocracy not democracy

The announcement that I drafted included two screenshots showing the new light 
and a dark themes. Although seemingly innocuous to the casual observer, within 
the screenshots was a detail that got a few people a little worked up: the 
window close/maximise/minimise buttons had moved from the right to the left.

Community controversy

A bug was filed regarding the change, and everyone and their dog weighed in to 
share their opinions. Some offered genuinely thoughtful usability critiques, 
but many spewed forth disjointed, rambling opinions.

The debate raged on before Mark threw his two cents into the well: "We all 
make Ubuntu, but we do not all make all of it. In other words, we delegate 
well. We have a kernel team, and they make kernel decisions. You don't get to 
make kernel decisions unless you're in that kernel team. You can file bugs and 
comment and engage, but you don't get to second-guess their decisions. … We 
have processes to help make sure we're doing a good job of delegation, but 
being an open community is not the same as saying everybody has a say in 
everything."

At the heart of Shuttleworth's response was a clarification that decisions at 
Ubuntu are not made by consensus but by recognised and informed 
decisionmakers. He concluded his post in response to a previous comment, 
affirming this position of Ubuntu:

"This is not a democracy. Good feedback, good data, are welcome. But we are 
not voting on design decisions." Within seconds of his comment on the bug 
being posted, Linux and open source newswires were ablaze with stories that 
Ubuntu was not a democracy, with some mis-reporting that there had been a 
fundamental change in how we build Ubuntu. My inbox filled up.

When the story broke, it reminded me of a conversation I had with Mark three 
years ago at an Ubuntu Developer Summit in California. It was my first UDS and 
I was still learning the ropes. At the time, I was putting together a 
community-led governance board for the Ubuntu Forums.

We'd codified the expectations of the council, fleshed out term lengths, decided 
on governance infrastructure and identified what the council would focus on. 
All we needed to do was decide who was going to serve on the council.

As we discussed different approaches, I recommended that we could hold a vote, 
to which Mark responded: "No, this is not a democracy." At first, my reaction 
was pretty much the same rabbit-caught-in-headlights response that some people 
experienced recently. Democracy felt like a culturally familiar, comfortable 
and fair approach to community, so the idea it was not our culture came as a 
bit of a bolt out of the blue. Mark continued to explain the position:

"In Ubuntu, decisions are not driven by a popularity contest, but instead by 
informed decision-makers with firm experience of the problem and making 
solutions." After he'd clarified what Ubuntu was not, he followed up with what 
it was: "Ubuntu is a meritocracy."

Merit-based change

For those of you unfamiliar with the term, a meritocracy doesn't assume that 
everyone has a right to a vote, but instead that leadership and direction is 
driven by those who've developed a reputation based on merit and good work.

In a meritocracy, you don't climb the community hierarchy by driving a nicer 
car, having finer clothes or other such material attributes. Progress is made 
through great work that's identified and respected, and grounded in experience 
and informed judgment.

Meritocratic communities are at the heart of how people share and collaborate 
in an idealised manner. As kids, we're warned of the temptation of bending the 
rules, or using status or a materialistic veneer as a fast-track to getting on 
in the world. From our earliest memories we're taught that good deeds are 
rewarded with good deeds.

Communities such as Ubuntu work in this very manner. Fundamentally, 
communities are economies, but instead of growing financial capital, we develop 
our reserves of social capital. We build this by giving gifts to the community 
(such as patches, documentation, bug reports or other contributions), and when 
others see our gifts and respect our work, we grow in their minds as good 
citizens; citizens who have experience and who we typically trust to lead.

These attributes are by no means specific to Ubuntu; the majority of open 
source communities are also meritocratic and leaders are identified through 
good work, recognised contributions and trust generated by the community.

I'm hugely proud of the incredible work the global Ubuntu community has 
achieved in the last six years, and meritocracy has helped bring viability, 
respect and acknowledgement to their work.

We still have work to do and problems to solve, but opportunity is lighting 
the path forward and I, for one, am ready to roll.

Read more: http://www.techradar.com/news/software/operating-systems/ubuntu-
meritocracy-not-democracy-695040#ixzz0qjGjIaQf