It's really quite a good post, though I suppose it is embarrassing for the people involved. It spells out clearly what the problem is (i.e. what bugs have been

It's really quite a good post, though I suppose it is embarrassing for the people involved. It spells out clearly what the problem is (i.e. what bugs have been introduced and what are likely to be introduced), what actions he wants changed in the future (i.e. don't ignore new compiler warnings) and says that he is not satisfied with the level of quality. He even indicates specifically which people he wants to pay particular attention to the issue. That he can get away with saying these things shows that he has built a good team. I know I am not alone in experiencing the frustration of pointing out problems only to be greeted with, "Yeah, whatever. That's just your opinion." Or conversely having people complain vociferously about something without knowing the actual problems it will create (very often it is merely "You aren't doing it my way!"). I think the important thing is that, no matter how OTT Linus's posts can seem to someone outside the process, he has built trust. His complaints are very nearly always, "You are going to break X" and almost never "You aren't doing it my way". Even if it is difficult to understand, the people working on the kernel trust him and will accept the criticism. Just musing here, but I think that if you want to build something of quality, you need a person on the team who is willing to be critical of failure. But that person has to engender trust in the rest of the team. It's quite a difficult balance because nobody likes to be criticised (or have their work criticised). Getting it right is hard and is probably the biggest failure I see of people trying to make the jump from being a good solid dev to being a good leader of people.