4 ms·

> and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was

by stale2002 5y ago

> and assessing them based on merit. What merit? Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? WTF does that even mean? As in specifically, what was the action that amazon did, to marginalize anyone? Did they say mean things about them? Did they have a meeting without them? Did they kick them off of a group? Did they create a feature roadmap, without getting the core teams feedback? Just say specifically what happened, with actual details, that describe exactly how someone was marginalize, and the consequences of that! > reason to ignore other points What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. But even that point is low on details. Have they used the board seat to do anything bad? Whats the concern?

kbenson 5y ago
> Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."? My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Amazon is the lead on multiple teams, and chose not elect a new executive directory while letting the prior one go? I think not. Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. What bearing does the "they've marginalized the core team" statement have on them that renders them being unworthy to assess? > What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. That exact same tweet you reference notes they've decided not to have an Executive Director. Maybe if people weren't ignoring that because of some later statement that might get some attention.
- stale2002 5y ago
  > But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior Its not ignoring! Its asking people to say what the actual problem is, beyond just that Amazon has people on a couple committees. Have these committees done anything bad? Is amazon pushing for features that people don't like? Will some future bad thing happen because of this? What is the value statement here! > Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. Ok, and the problem is that nobody is actually saying why some things are bad or not. > that might get some attention. I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. I could make a dozen different guesses as to why you, or others, think there is a problem. But I shouldn't have to do that. It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.
  - kbenson 5y ago
    > Its not ignoring! Look a the comment I originally responded to. They complained that two out of three items had no substance, therefore we can't have a serious conversation. That is, specifically, what I was addressing. > I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? > You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. It's specifically stated in the tweet. Not having an executive director leaves the chair with more power. Amazon is the chair. Amazon has chosen to let the position go unfilled which results in their own position having more power. He goes into more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656 Actually asking questions about that, like you are here, is the outcome I was calling for, as opposed to ignoring it because of other statements, as the original comment I replied to was. > It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is. No, you're placing me as someone on the one side of the argument, when the side is irrelevant. My point was that ignoring everything said because of portions that don't add up is not a valid way to assess the information. That doesn't require me to take a side, and in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point and assume my goal is something else, as I suspect you did.
    - stale2002 5y ago
      > in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point The problem is that, it is pretty clear, that based on how many people have agree with me, that this guy was unclear. There was obviously a lot of confusion here. And that is a valid criticism of this person. > My point was that ignoring everything said The fact that so many people are confused about what the guy is saying, is on him. He should have communicated better. And no, it is not everyone else's fault, that basically everyone misunderstood his point. > He goes into more detail here Well maybe he should have done a better job of communicating his ideas, from the very beginning. That's on him. The fact that he was so bad at saying what the problem was, and why we should care, from the very beginning, is a valid problem. > is not a valid way to assess the information. No, it is not on the public to have to cross reference hacker news posts, with tweets, with blogs posts, to figure out why we should care. That is the job of the communicator. And if you communicate it poorly, then that is your failing.

kbenson 5y ago

> Lets take the claim of "marginalized the core team"? You mean, "let's take an acillary claim, not one of the core three" that are stated to be "undefinable(sp). they're just facts."? My point, which I thought was clear, but apparently not, is that if you have a problem with the statement you brought up, sure, mention that's problematic. But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior, that Amazon is the lead on multiple teams, and chose not elect a new executive directory while letting the prior one go? I think not. Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. What bearing does the "they've marginalized the core team" statement have on them that renders them being unworthy to assess? > What other points? Specifically? The only verifiable point, that anyone has mentioned, is that amazon has a board seat somewhere, on some organization. That exact same tweet you reference notes they've decided not to have an Executive Director. Maybe if people weren't ignoring that because of some later statement that might get some attention.

stale2002 5y ago
> But is that a reason to ignore the things mentioned immediately prior Its not ignoring! Its asking people to say what the actual problem is, beyond just that Amazon has people on a couple committees. Have these committees done anything bad? Is amazon pushing for features that people don't like? Will some future bad thing happen because of this? What is the value statement here! > Those are specific claims that can be assessed individually. Ok, and the problem is that nobody is actually saying why some things are bad or not. > that might get some attention. I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. I could make a dozen different guesses as to why you, or others, think there is a problem. But I shouldn't have to do that. It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is.
- kbenson 5y ago
  > Its not ignoring! Look a the comment I originally responded to. They complained that two out of three items had no substance, therefore we can't have a serious conversation. That is, specifically, what I was addressing. > I still don't know why it should get attention though. So they don't have an executive director? Why should anyone care? > You keep trying to say things, without saying why anyone should care about this stuff, or why it is bad. It's specifically stated in the tweet. Not having an executive director leaves the chair with more power. Amazon is the chair. Amazon has chosen to let the position go unfilled which results in their own position having more power. He goes into more detail here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28513656 Actually asking questions about that, like you are here, is the outcome I was calling for, as opposed to ignoring it because of other statements, as the original comment I replied to was. > It is on you, to both say what is happening, as well as for you to say why it is bad, and what the concern is. No, you're placing me as someone on the one side of the argument, when the side is irrelevant. My point was that ignoring everything said because of portions that don't add up is not a valid way to assess the information. That doesn't require me to take a side, and in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point and assume my goal is something else, as I suspect you did.
  - stale2002 5y ago
    > in fact taking a side just makes it easier to people to dismiss my point The problem is that, it is pretty clear, that based on how many people have agree with me, that this guy was unclear. There was obviously a lot of confusion here. And that is a valid criticism of this person. > My point was that ignoring everything said The fact that so many people are confused about what the guy is saying, is on him. He should have communicated better. And no, it is not everyone else's fault, that basically everyone misunderstood his point. > He goes into more detail here Well maybe he should have done a better job of communicating his ideas, from the very beginning. That's on him. The fact that he was so bad at saying what the problem was, and why we should care, from the very beginning, is a valid problem. > is not a valid way to assess the information. No, it is not on the public to have to cross reference hacker news posts, with tweets, with blogs posts, to figure out why we should care. That is the job of the communicator. And if you communicate it poorly, then that is your failing.