4 ms·

> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition

by jbob2000 8y ago

> I got a strong sense of irritation and annoyance that people still, after many years, have not understood the organizational structure. He's using repetition to make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that his boss really is his boss People aren’t as rigid as the organizational structure wants them to be. My boss is also my boss, but when his boss wants to cut through the bs and get stuff done, he comes right to me. Humans are fluid like that. You can read about Bradley, he’s been around the open source community for decades. The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him, how is that not immediately obvious? Why be disingenuous and think that it is something more insidious (why would you even suggest something sexual? There was no indication of that....)?

eesmith 8y ago
What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" Do you have evidence that that is the case? Because as presented, we don't know the specific reasons, and Kuhn states that "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen". I presume Kuhn doesn't think his reputation is relevant. Nor do I see a reason to think that Bradley's reputation is relevant. If the donor wants to speak to Bradley, why gate the donation on the private meeting? Why not donate the money without that thread attached, and independently arrange a private meeting with Kuhn? Also, Sandler also has a reputation. She has been in the free software community for 13 years, has a legal background in defending free software, is the Executive Director, and (according to Kuhn), "better than [him] at the key jobs of a successful Executive Director." The question isn't "why would someone want to have a private conversation with Kuhn?" but "why would a donor gate a donation on having a private conversation with Kuhn?" It is certainly not "immediately obvious" that Sandler shouldn't also be at that conversation. Can you explain why it's obvious to you? The "disingenuous" comment I made you mentioned is because the OP wrote "unfathomable", which is an extremist viewpoint which sidesteps the topic. I can make up fathomable reasons - and indeed I did - but they are all much more improbable than the stated reason of institutional sexism.
- charmides 8y ago
  >You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" >Do you have evidence that that is the case? OP does not have the burden to prove something about the donor's motives. The burden is on the author who wrote this inflammatory article, because he is the person who is making a claim that the donor is sexist.
  - eesmith 8y ago
    What level of evidence is enough? Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence? I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.
    - charmides 8y ago
      >What level of evidence is enough? Much more than what the author presented. >Why can we not accept what the author writes? Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence. >I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is more likely to make you biased.
      - eesmith 8y ago
        "intimacy"? What a delightful word. I am intimate with my partner. I have intimate friends. This is the first time I've ever been told I'm intimate with someone who I've never met, who I only know about through public writings and talks, and to whom I've never communicated. My circle of intimacy instantly expanded as it now includes Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Garfield, and Donald Knuth. Though to be fair, I have communicated with the latter two. And all those people who write critical biographies of dead people - surely we can't trust them now as they are too intimate to the person in question, and thus more likely to be biased. Indeed, the only people we can trust are those who know nothing at all.

eesmith 8y ago

What you describe is your boss's boss exercising power within his job position. That is not the case Kuhn describes. When someone comes to you to have handle something which should be handled by your boss's boss, do you go ahead and do it? Even if you don't want to, and it's outside of your job description? I have read about Kuhn and Sandler. I have also listened to most of their oggcasts. You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" Do you have evidence that that is the case? Because as presented, we don't know the specific reasons, and Kuhn states that "I can't think of a single reason this donor could want to speak to me that would not be more productive if he instead spoke with Karen". I presume Kuhn doesn't think his reputation is relevant. Nor do I see a reason to think that Bradley's reputation is relevant. If the donor wants to speak to Bradley, why gate the donation on the private meeting? Why not donate the money without that thread attached, and independently arrange a private meeting with Kuhn? Also, Sandler also has a reputation. She has been in the free software community for 13 years, has a legal background in defending free software, is the Executive Director, and (according to Kuhn), "better than [him] at the key jobs of a successful Executive Director." The question isn't "why would someone want to have a private conversation with Kuhn?" but "why would a donor gate a donation on having a private conversation with Kuhn?" It is certainly not "immediately obvious" that Sandler shouldn't also be at that conversation. Can you explain why it's obvious to you? The "disingenuous" comment I made you mentioned is because the OP wrote "unfathomable", which is an extremist viewpoint which sidesteps the topic. I can make up fathomable reasons - and indeed I did - but they are all much more improbable than the stated reason of institutional sexism.

charmides 8y ago
>You write "The reputation alone is the reason why the donor wants to speak with him" >Do you have evidence that that is the case? OP does not have the burden to prove something about the donor's motives. The burden is on the author who wrote this inflammatory article, because he is the person who is making a claim that the donor is sexist.
- eesmith 8y ago
  What level of evidence is enough? Why can we not accept what the author writes? What motive does he have to tell something other than his best interpretation of the evidence? I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. That has lead me to conclude that this is not something he makes lightly or for ulterior motives.
  - charmides 8y ago
    >What level of evidence is enough? Much more than what the author presented. >Why can we not accept what the author writes? Because when people make ugly accusations against others, they need to show evidence. >I have read and listened to far more from Kuhn than I have of you or the other commenters here on HN. Your perceived intimacy with the people in question does not work in your favor. On the contrary, it is more likely to make you biased.
    - eesmith 8y ago
      "intimacy"? What a delightful word. I am intimate with my partner. I have intimate friends. This is the first time I've ever been told I'm intimate with someone who I've never met, who I only know about through public writings and talks, and to whom I've never communicated. My circle of intimacy instantly expanded as it now includes Richard Feynman, Freeman Dyson, Eugene Garfield, and Donald Knuth. Though to be fair, I have communicated with the latter two. And all those people who write critical biographies of dead people - surely we can't trust them now as they are too intimate to the person in question, and thus more likely to be biased. Indeed, the only people we can trust are those who know nothing at all.