5 ms·

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head

I'm among those with mixed feelings. - list of funny names that is kept in some persistent form and circulates the company with full acknowledgment of the head people: Childish and extremely unprofessional, but still a typical mistake rather than a colossal disaster; - politics and racism issue: looks like typical misunderstanding but on a very fragile subjects. Very easy to get into drama scenarios with this mix. Very easy to mishandle it. But it still seems that this topic is not normal workplace topic. If there is a serious issue in that matter, you go to some authorities. If you did not address it officially and decided to attack the head people - sorry, it's not the way. That might suggest that there was no real issue as there were no serious actions; - policy change public announcement first then to your team: Yeah that's a big mistake, something that probably their books wouldn't even advise. Head people did not recognise that this is not the way to manage fragile topics. Is DHH and Jason all evil? - These are the same guys that give equal pay regardless of remote worker location. - They were always believing in remote work, which is bigger problem for company and it's more of a benefit for the employees - Many times were vocal about issues with big companies, where many others did not have enough courage to do the same - Creators of a breakthrough tech stack and tremendous contributions to open-source - Always happily sharing their knowledge They made a mistake. But they don't seem to be bad guys here overall. In this context, the article seems to be written by someone who had some personal issues with the guys and he found a way to "show'em all". Even if it tells his version of the story, to me it's at least unfair and biased.

midrus 5y ago
Best reasoning I've read so far. Can't agree more with you.
emrah 5y ago
I agree with you too. Jason and DHH draw a lot of attention, especially DHH, and some of it is not favorable. This incident just gave fodder to those who already had a pet peeve with them.
- tanseydavid 5y ago
  Having and acting on "Pet Peeves" in the workplace is about as unprofessional as one can get.
mumblemumble 5y ago
One possibly missing bullet point from the first list: Disbanding the committee for working on diversity, equity and inclusion. Previously this subject was explicitly a workplace conversation topic at Basecamp. They even sanctioned it with a committee. Apparently right up until the point where the committee found a skeleton in a closet. And then throw the timeframe on top of it. If this stuff had happened over the course of a year, it might have been fine. But if it unfolds as quickly as it did at Basecamp, people don't have a chance to stop and breathe. It's just react react react.
okprod 5y ago
They made a mistake. I think they made more than one mistake. Overall, I think this situation really paints Jason in a bad light; I used to use Basecamp, but I actually know him more from all his interviews and writings about management and leadership.
foobiter 5y ago
They also kept an outspoken Islamophobe on the team for over a decade
ramraj07 5y ago
You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.
- jarek83 5y ago
  To be honest, it's hard to judge this just by reading this article. They only way to have own word on this matter would be to take part in the company meetings. Check his email after he departed - for him it was misunderstanding. What if that was actual misunderstanding?
- dnissley 5y ago
  I'm a pretty left leaning person and I mostly agree with the things he's quoted as saying in this article. I hugely disagree with the way that white supremacism has had it's definition widened within certain circles and how those circles are now attempting to push that definition into wider usage through the type of bullying that's on display in this very article. For most people white supremacism conjures up images of nazi germany, the slave trade, jim crow, lynchings, the kkk, etc. Our society today does not resemble those in such a way that we should begin using that word to mean something totally different. It feels like an awful rhetorical trick where the emotional resonance of the older meaning of the word is felt by everyone each time it's used while meaning something far more subtle. We're dealing with something far more complicated today, and no number of performative denouncements will help us solve our problems.
  - mumblemumble 5y ago
    It's a fair point, and I too have a tendency to get annoyed at politically motivated language drift. But it's a thing that happens, and it's been happening since the dawn of time, and I'm personally pessimistic that there's much that can be done about it. Might as well curse a puddle for being muddy. There's a lesson to be learned here. I wasn't there, of course, but, based on reading this article, it seems that arguing semantics was possibly Singer's single biggest tactical error in that meeting. There were much more pressing issues at play, and choosing such a banal hill to die on sent a strong message to at least some portion of the staff. Perhaps not one that he would have wanted to send if he had taken the time to count to ten before opening his mouth. It's like in that Hacker News commenting guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."
igneo676 5y ago
Ultimately, no, they're not "bad guys" in the sense that they're irredeemably evil. Unfortunately, the current situation certainly paints them in the "extremely foolish or downright spiteful" territory Once a harmful set of actions comes to light, it's your job as the leadership team to: 1. Apologize 2. Correct the wrong 3. Allow your employees the space to process and heal a. Note: People are messy. Especially hurt people express themselves in ways that seem foreign to us. Listen to them 4. Get employees back on board the company mission and work together as a team Rather than allow space for employees to reach catharsis, they shut down the employees internally. Rather than get their employees back on the company mission, they told them "there's the door". All while externally extolling the virtues of "staying out of politics" and gaslighting everyone. They're within their rights to do that. Supposedly all of this passed internal HR/Legal review. It's just not the ethical way to deal with this. It's not what we expected from a company that we've long associated with being brash-but-ethical in their dealings
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tha0xa2 5y ago
  The problem is no amount of space will ever placate, they will never reach catharsis until they burn down every transgressor, every windmill they view as a monster, etc. Activists will never sleep, and will take every single inch of space until they've rid the company of its "white supremacy culture." You have to hold the line somewhere, and anywhere they hold the line, the activist employees will interpret it as the worst possible place.
- jarek83 5y ago
  Are you past or present employee? If so, then you probably know better, but I can only response to what I know, and I was never related to Basecamp. What you say is correct in really bad situations. Thing is, that I have trouble to see real issue in what has happened here. It somehow feels surreal that DHH and Jason were able to fool us all for years, and now it seems that they are being accused of almost being hostile to their employees. Everything arose around this darn name list. How this ended up with using words of "white supremacy" is beyond me, and genuinely feels as words misunderstanding or misuse. In a team with non-natives, it is extremely easy to have such misunderstandings. But it is also easy to not spot that misunderstanding quickly. And that someone misunderstood something is not a reason to apologize I believe. Also the way they tried to handle the situation, seems to me like they were stunned by it and it took them off guard, because they are probably not racists guys, and instead they are fully and deeply against such people. That's why further developments seem more random than professional or done on purpose. I just had a situation in my team where we had a junior guy that we wanted to train. He was very hesitant to learn, he always knew better, and any PR feedback ended always with 2 hours-long calls, trying to explain him the comments there. He was always told that we want to get feedback from him, that he always will be listened and he was always assuring us that he is fine, that he finally understood the feedback and all. Guess what - today he told me that he leaves and the main reason was that he could never understand the PR and that he never could agree with it, and that he always felt that he can't say word and that he has to obey..... I'm feeling confused and cheated all day. I went far and beyond to make him feel as comfortable as possible, it took many overtime hours to stay with him to discuss stuff and then go back to do my tasks. I'm speechless right now, and trying to not loose my self-confidence as I literally don't know what I've done wrong. I feel that their situation might be somewhat similar now: 1. Apologize - but maybe they don't see what for? 2. Correct the wrong - but what was wrong? 3. Allow the space for employees - what kind of space? How are they not allowed for that already? Do you mean doing some sessions and commit weeks to try to solve people's own issues? 4. Get employees back on board - ok they messed up with this one by posting the policy change publicly. Not sure it was noticed, but DHH hasn't tweeted once in May. I obviously don't know the reason, but maybe, just maybe, he is trying to put all the pieces together to at least have an idea what just happened?
HappyDreamer 5y ago
Why do so many / "all" people at Twitter seem to agree with the most disappointed people who quit? Whilst here at HN, different people have different viewpoints (not all of them the same) -- there are 1) some who think like those at Twitter, whilst 2) others see things more from DHH's and Jason's perspective. And 3) some here at HN, seems you're one of them, understand both perspectives at the same time. Why no people from the last two "groups", on Twitter? (at least I didn't stumble upon any such tweets)

midrus 5y ago

Best reasoning I've read so far. Can't agree more with you.

emrah 5y ago

I agree with you too. Jason and DHH draw a lot of attention, especially DHH, and some of it is not favorable. This incident just gave fodder to those who already had a pet peeve with them.

tanseydavid 5y ago
Having and acting on "Pet Peeves" in the workplace is about as unprofessional as one can get.

mumblemumble 5y ago

One possibly missing bullet point from the first list: Disbanding the committee for working on diversity, equity and inclusion. Previously this subject was explicitly a workplace conversation topic at Basecamp. They even sanctioned it with a committee. Apparently right up until the point where the committee found a skeleton in a closet. And then throw the timeframe on top of it. If this stuff had happened over the course of a year, it might have been fine. But if it unfolds as quickly as it did at Basecamp, people don't have a chance to stop and breathe. It's just react react react.

okprod 5y ago

They made a mistake. I think they made more than one mistake. Overall, I think this situation really paints Jason in a bad light; I used to use Basecamp, but I actually know him more from all his interviews and writings about management and leadership.

foobiter 5y ago

They also kept an outspoken Islamophobe on the team for over a decade

ramraj07 5y ago

You’re missing a crucial bit that changes everything: one of the earliest employees is ostensibly a very, very right leaning person who made super questionable comments unprompted in the townhall, and refused to acknowledge racism as a concept could exist in companies. And one of the founders just couldn’t say anything that would have helped in that moment.

jarek83 5y ago
To be honest, it's hard to judge this just by reading this article. They only way to have own word on this matter would be to take part in the company meetings. Check his email after he departed - for him it was misunderstanding. What if that was actual misunderstanding?
dnissley 5y ago
I'm a pretty left leaning person and I mostly agree with the things he's quoted as saying in this article. I hugely disagree with the way that white supremacism has had it's definition widened within certain circles and how those circles are now attempting to push that definition into wider usage through the type of bullying that's on display in this very article. For most people white supremacism conjures up images of nazi germany, the slave trade, jim crow, lynchings, the kkk, etc. Our society today does not resemble those in such a way that we should begin using that word to mean something totally different. It feels like an awful rhetorical trick where the emotional resonance of the older meaning of the word is felt by everyone each time it's used while meaning something far more subtle. We're dealing with something far more complicated today, and no number of performative denouncements will help us solve our problems.
- mumblemumble 5y ago
  It's a fair point, and I too have a tendency to get annoyed at politically motivated language drift. But it's a thing that happens, and it's been happening since the dawn of time, and I'm personally pessimistic that there's much that can be done about it. Might as well curse a puddle for being muddy. There's a lesson to be learned here. I wasn't there, of course, but, based on reading this article, it seems that arguing semantics was possibly Singer's single biggest tactical error in that meeting. There were much more pressing issues at play, and choosing such a banal hill to die on sent a strong message to at least some portion of the staff. Perhaps not one that he would have wanted to send if he had taken the time to count to ten before opening his mouth. It's like in that Hacker News commenting guideline: "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith."

igneo676 5y ago

Ultimately, no, they're not "bad guys" in the sense that they're irredeemably evil. Unfortunately, the current situation certainly paints them in the "extremely foolish or downright spiteful" territory Once a harmful set of actions comes to light, it's your job as the leadership team to: 1. Apologize 2. Correct the wrong 3. Allow your employees the space to process and heal a. Note: People are messy. Especially hurt people express themselves in ways that seem foreign to us. Listen to them 4. Get employees back on board the company mission and work together as a team Rather than allow space for employees to reach catharsis, they shut down the employees internally. Rather than get their employees back on the company mission, they told them "there's the door". All while externally extolling the virtues of "staying out of politics" and gaslighting everyone. They're within their rights to do that. Supposedly all of this passed internal HR/Legal review. It's just not the ethical way to deal with this. It's not what we expected from a company that we've long associated with being brash-but-ethical in their dealings

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tha0xa2 5y ago
The problem is no amount of space will ever placate, they will never reach catharsis until they burn down every transgressor, every windmill they view as a monster, etc. Activists will never sleep, and will take every single inch of space until they've rid the company of its "white supremacy culture." You have to hold the line somewhere, and anywhere they hold the line, the activist employees will interpret it as the worst possible place.
jarek83 5y ago
Are you past or present employee? If so, then you probably know better, but I can only response to what I know, and I was never related to Basecamp. What you say is correct in really bad situations. Thing is, that I have trouble to see real issue in what has happened here. It somehow feels surreal that DHH and Jason were able to fool us all for years, and now it seems that they are being accused of almost being hostile to their employees. Everything arose around this darn name list. How this ended up with using words of "white supremacy" is beyond me, and genuinely feels as words misunderstanding or misuse. In a team with non-natives, it is extremely easy to have such misunderstandings. But it is also easy to not spot that misunderstanding quickly. And that someone misunderstood something is not a reason to apologize I believe. Also the way they tried to handle the situation, seems to me like they were stunned by it and it took them off guard, because they are probably not racists guys, and instead they are fully and deeply against such people. That's why further developments seem more random than professional or done on purpose. I just had a situation in my team where we had a junior guy that we wanted to train. He was very hesitant to learn, he always knew better, and any PR feedback ended always with 2 hours-long calls, trying to explain him the comments there. He was always told that we want to get feedback from him, that he always will be listened and he was always assuring us that he is fine, that he finally understood the feedback and all. Guess what - today he told me that he leaves and the main reason was that he could never understand the PR and that he never could agree with it, and that he always felt that he can't say word and that he has to obey..... I'm feeling confused and cheated all day. I went far and beyond to make him feel as comfortable as possible, it took many overtime hours to stay with him to discuss stuff and then go back to do my tasks. I'm speechless right now, and trying to not loose my self-confidence as I literally don't know what I've done wrong. I feel that their situation might be somewhat similar now: 1. Apologize - but maybe they don't see what for? 2. Correct the wrong - but what was wrong? 3. Allow the space for employees - what kind of space? How are they not allowed for that already? Do you mean doing some sessions and commit weeks to try to solve people's own issues? 4. Get employees back on board - ok they messed up with this one by posting the policy change publicly. Not sure it was noticed, but DHH hasn't tweeted once in May. I obviously don't know the reason, but maybe, just maybe, he is trying to put all the pieces together to at least have an idea what just happened?

HappyDreamer 5y ago

Why do so many / "all" people at Twitter seem to agree with the most disappointed people who quit? Whilst here at HN, different people have different viewpoints (not all of them the same) -- there are 1) some who think like those at Twitter, whilst 2) others see things more from DHH's and Jason's perspective. And 3) some here at HN, seems you're one of them, understand both perspectives at the same time. Why no people from the last two "groups", on Twitter? (at least I didn't stumble upon any such tweets)