Steven D'Aprano writes:
As I see it, the two camps are divided purely on the question of how to get increased privileges.
As I see it, the division is over what constitutes merit, and how it is created or improved.
Both sides agree that merit is a requirement, but the disagreement is on how to prove you have such merit.
I disagree vehemently with that characterization of my position (and I strongly suspect David would, too). The primary argument of the "quality" camp as I see it is that the familiarization period *creates* value, both in terms of training ("merit" for the job) and interpersonal relationships ("building community"). Thus it is a *net benefit*, not a *net cost*. AFAICS, the "quantity" camp sees it as a nearly pure loss, simply slowing down inflow of preexisting "merit" (and perhaps discouraging it entirely).
*By definition*, a community is not diverse in the most fundamental sense.
I think you're using a definition of community that doesn't appear in any dictionary I'm aware of, nor do I understand what you mean by "most fundamental sense" of diverse. Talking about diversity within a single community is not an oxymoron.
Where did I write "oxymoron"? The grammar was a bit awkward, but my point is simple: the root of the word "community" is *common*. Therefore it makes sense to bring in newcomers via a process which accustoms them to the commonality, of whatever degree, the community is based on.