> To further complicate the matter, the idea of a "bad" environment is relative. I see no relativism here. As a description of your past experiences it was os

> To further complicate the matter, the idea of a "bad" environment is relative. I see no relativism here. As a description of your past experiences it was ostensibly a productive, functioning environment where every single member of every single group was comfortable communicating in that style. As a general prescription for the most productive behavior for groups it's a poor model. As you point out, adding a single member with a different disposition can quickly turn the thing into a toxic environment. Also, that model suffers from the same issue FLOSS projects do-- namely, it's hard to get any numbers at all on how many people never join up because the communication style isn't welcoming to outsiders. Anyhow, if you posted this on Twitter I'm sure your description would quickly become transformed into an ostensible prescription by its algorithm as it got distributed for maximum outrage. But that's a problem with anti-human digital platforms, not a sign of ambiguity in what constitutes a productive work environment. Edit: clarification