3 ms·

> Your correction amounts to saying "the problem is not crime, it's criminals" -- it's obvious and it's already conveyed in the original phrasing. No, that is

> Your correction amounts to saying "the problem is not crime, it's criminals" -- it's obvious and it's already conveyed in the original phrasing. No, that is distinctly not what I am saying. My assertion is that centralized authority is important, and perhaps even necessary in creative endeavors. Furthermore complaints about "bad" designers tend to actually amount to "i disagree with your design vision/priorities/choices, therefore you are bad". But disagreeing with someone's design choices does not mean that they are being a bad project leader. Edit: having read over my original post, it's a bit muddled so i can see where you're coming from. If you read some of the other sibling posts, you'll get a clearer sense of what i mean.

coldtea 13y ago
>No, that is distinctly not what I am saying. My assertion is that centralized authority is important, and perhaps even necessary in creative endeavors. To that, I agree. I don't have a problem with centralize authority (one guy being in charge etc, like Linus or Guido or Jobs). I have a problem when the person being in charge does it with some hazy "You'll listen to me because because I know good design" thing -- Jobs, DHH etc proved their worth in practice, they didn't merely claim they have the knowledge. Whereas today you see people convinced they are the next Jobs/DHH that are just shallow imitators with no talent, and they try to force this at their teams / companies / communities.