3 ms·

Linux is doing well. We don't know how what would have happened if Linus hadn't frozen out several kernel contributors before working on himself. I've seen the

by Tepix 4y ago

Linux is doing well. We don't know how what would have happened if Linus hadn't frozen out several kernel contributors before working on himself. I've seen the effect of a brilliant jerk first hand. People leave. I'm sure it's often a net negative. Btw, calling this discussion a "lie" comes across as overly aggressive.

FeepingCreature 4y ago
I'm not sure it's that simple. Consider a situation where only one of two people A and B can stay; but if A causes B to leave it's obvious (because A is rude), and if B causes A to leave it's non-obvious (because B writes bad code and lowered the project standard enough to torpedo A's enthusiasm). In that situation, if iterated, it would look like 1. jerks clearly cause people to leave, but 2. projects get worse over time for no reason anyone can clearly identify. Identifying that you are in situation 2 would be difficult, in part because you'd kicked out everyone rude enough to point fingers at B. I don't know how to solve that, if it's real.
- runlevel1 4y ago
  That would be a failure in leadership. Two people conflicting doesn't necessarily mean either are toxic. If a legitimate complaint falls on deaf ears, even people who aren't toxic can become rude in their frustration. It could be a legitimate problem with the underperforming person (that may or may not be fixable), an overreaction to a perceived problem, an interpersonal conflict between two people, a toxic employee, or some combination of the the above. If you have a toxic person and an underperformer dragging the team morale down, you have two problems that need to be fixed. A good leader will dig deeper to try to understand what's really going on and act accordingly. In the scenario you've described, digging deeper would mean having the person making the claim present concrete examples and soliciting outside opinions if folks on the team are unwilling to give theirs. In my experience, things usually fall apart due to a failure to act rather than acting on false positives.
Beltalowda 4y ago
I think "brilliant jerk" is lacking in nuance. From what I've seen much of the time Linus really isn't that bad, and never was. He did (does?) have his "moments" where he rails against people who he feels should know better, which are often excessive and unproductive. I don't wish to excuse this, but but this is very different from someone who is a jerk 100% of the time, rails against "noobs" constantly, and things like that. In the end, details like this matter a great deal.

by Tepix 4y ago

FeepingCreature 4y ago

I'm not sure it's that simple. Consider a situation where only one of two people A and B can stay; but if A causes B to leave it's obvious (because A is rude), and if B causes A to leave it's non-obvious (because B writes bad code and lowered the project standard enough to torpedo A's enthusiasm). In that situation, if iterated, it would look like 1. jerks clearly cause people to leave, but 2. projects get worse over time for no reason anyone can clearly identify. Identifying that you are in situation 2 would be difficult, in part because you'd kicked out everyone rude enough to point fingers at B. I don't know how to solve that, if it's real.

runlevel1 4y ago
That would be a failure in leadership. Two people conflicting doesn't necessarily mean either are toxic. If a legitimate complaint falls on deaf ears, even people who aren't toxic can become rude in their frustration. It could be a legitimate problem with the underperforming person (that may or may not be fixable), an overreaction to a perceived problem, an interpersonal conflict between two people, a toxic employee, or some combination of the the above. If you have a toxic person and an underperformer dragging the team morale down, you have two problems that need to be fixed. A good leader will dig deeper to try to understand what's really going on and act accordingly. In the scenario you've described, digging deeper would mean having the person making the claim present concrete examples and soliciting outside opinions if folks on the team are unwilling to give theirs. In my experience, things usually fall apart due to a failure to act rather than acting on false positives.

Beltalowda 4y ago

I think "brilliant jerk" is lacking in nuance. From what I've seen much of the time Linus really isn't that bad, and never was. He did (does?) have his "moments" where he rails against people who he feels should know better, which are often excessive and unproductive. I don't wish to excuse this, but but this is very different from someone who is a jerk 100% of the time, rails against "noobs" constantly, and things like that. In the end, details like this matter a great deal.