4 ms·

I totally agree. What doesn't get mentioned in the OP is just how incorrect the presentation was. If I was a ruby newbie, I'd want someone to stand up and say w

by kaiuhl 15y ago

I totally agree. What doesn't get mentioned in the OP is just how incorrect the presentation was. If I was a ruby newbie, I'd want someone to stand up and say why the presentation, which was surely being presented as truth, was actually incorrect. In addition, publicly berating Yehuda seems really pointless given his huge contributions to our community. Let's be nice.

davidbalbert 15y ago
I think programmers generally care too much about correctness at the expense of feelings, community, and personal relationships. Very often correcting someone is really about showing how smart you are. While I wasn't at the event in the article, it certainly seems that Yehuda could have been doing that, and he shouldn't have done it. I just don't think this is a productive way to fix the problem.
- quanticle 15y ago
  I think programmers generally care too much about correctness at the expense of feelings, community, and personal relationships. Maybe. Or, maybe like other engineers we care more about having things that work than your hurt feelings. In Inviting Disaster [1], Chiles talks about how the most successful engineering cultures don't cover up mistakes. They expose them and correct them at the earliest possible instance. This does sometimes require people to have a thick skin. It's not comfortable to realize that you're wrong. But, frankly, I'd much rather be correct than comfortable. Of course, this doesn't mean that you should personally attack the person who's wrong. But, from the article, that's exactly what happened. Ms. Selle doesn't say that Mr. Katz personally attacked the presenter. She just said that he questioned the presenter's methods and approach. I think that's entirely valid. I see it at scientific conferences all the time. I do agree that interrupting the presenter was uncalled for. Mr. Katz should have reserved his questions until the presenter was done speaking. But I don't think he was incorrect in asking the questions that he did. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Inviting-Disaster-Lessons-From-Technology/dp/0066620821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334249266&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Inviting-Disaster-Lessons-From-Technol... EDIT: accidentally forgot link
slantyyz 15y ago
This isn't a simple binary decision of "yes, correct the presenter" or "no, don't correct the presenter"". What you're ignoring is that Katz could have timed his criticism better. Katz could have simply been polite and let the speaker finish the presentation and then do a point-by-point breakdown of what his issues were with the talk AFTER the presentation was done. The audience in this case will still get the facts, so to speak. I don't know what the motivation of the speaker was to give the talk, but usually these presentations are well intentioned. Sometimes people just pick a topic they don't know about, do some research and then present their findings, as a means of learning themselves. We don't know what the situation was here. In any case, just let them finish, and then correct them. Is that so hard?

by kaiuhl 15y ago

davidbalbert 15y ago

I think programmers generally care too much about correctness at the expense of feelings, community, and personal relationships. Very often correcting someone is really about showing how smart you are. While I wasn't at the event in the article, it certainly seems that Yehuda could have been doing that, and he shouldn't have done it. I just don't think this is a productive way to fix the problem.

quanticle 15y ago
I think programmers generally care too much about correctness at the expense of feelings, community, and personal relationships. Maybe. Or, maybe like other engineers we care more about having things that work than your hurt feelings. In Inviting Disaster [1], Chiles talks about how the most successful engineering cultures don't cover up mistakes. They expose them and correct them at the earliest possible instance. This does sometimes require people to have a thick skin. It's not comfortable to realize that you're wrong. But, frankly, I'd much rather be correct than comfortable. Of course, this doesn't mean that you should personally attack the person who's wrong. But, from the article, that's exactly what happened. Ms. Selle doesn't say that Mr. Katz personally attacked the presenter. She just said that he questioned the presenter's methods and approach. I think that's entirely valid. I see it at scientific conferences all the time. I do agree that interrupting the presenter was uncalled for. Mr. Katz should have reserved his questions until the presenter was done speaking. But I don't think he was incorrect in asking the questions that he did. [1]: http://www.amazon.com/Inviting-Disaster-Lessons-From-Technology/dp/0066620821/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1334249266&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Inviting-Disaster-Lessons-From-Technol... EDIT: accidentally forgot link

slantyyz 15y ago

This isn't a simple binary decision of "yes, correct the presenter" or "no, don't correct the presenter"". What you're ignoring is that Katz could have timed his criticism better. Katz could have simply been polite and let the speaker finish the presentation and then do a point-by-point breakdown of what his issues were with the talk AFTER the presentation was done. The audience in this case will still get the facts, so to speak. I don't know what the motivation of the speaker was to give the talk, but usually these presentations are well intentioned. Sometimes people just pick a topic they don't know about, do some research and then present their findings, as a means of learning themselves. We don't know what the situation was here. In any case, just let them finish, and then correct them. Is that so hard?