5 ms·

Is it not possible to both be, perhaps stern and clear in view without being abrasive? "Hey John, thanks for contributing. I see you updated X. There's a lot o

by codyb 13y ago

Is it not possible to both be, perhaps stern and clear in view without being abrasive? "Hey John, thanks for contributing. I see you updated X. There's a lot of good there but this algorithm really needs to run faster and use less memory. Check out how Sarah did it here when working with Y. Additionally, here's some resources. Thanks."

14113 13y ago
That implies that it's ok. I would prefer: "Hey john, thanks for the contribution though, but it's not good enough - it's currently too slow and hogs too much memory. As an example of how it should be running see sarah's Y."
- codyb 13y ago
  That would be the case I suppose if John's entire contribution was poor. I was thinking perhaps there might be some part of John's contribution that was actually quality and to say "hey, you know you're doing good work, it's just this part that isn't working well". Obviously we're dealing in hypotheticals here and I guess if it is the case that none of John's code works well then your approach is probably the only decent approach. If there is some code of John's that does work well than I find a lot of times it's easier to give a little compliment prior to your criticism just so they know that yes, we do appreciate your work and contributions, but in order to be more effective here is what you have to do.
- andyjohnson0 13y ago
  Have you ever managed or lead a team? If you have, you'll know that your job in that situation is to get the best results from the team - over a variety of time-scales. Sometimes you have to crack the whip, but mostly its important to be somewhat diplomatic and respectful while still being clear and direct, because the team is made of people who (unless it has some kind of dysfunctional brogramming-type culture) have a need for fulfilment in the work they're doing. Some cultures are more direct (eg. Dutch, Israeli, Finnish) than others (eg. Japan). If everyone on a team expects the same norms then they are going to get along well. The problem for Linus is that the "team" is a pan-cultural community with a spread of norms and (it seems to me) that Linus want to be the Linux benevolent-dictator-for-life while everyone else expects him to be a leader.
jdjb 13y ago
"Hey John, thanks for contributing" - This is only true if you are actually grateful to John. Otherwise, John is wasting your time (if his patch is complete rubbish). "There's a lot of good there but this algorithm really needs to run faster and use less memory" - Another lie (unless there actually is a lot of good there). What if there's not a lot of good? Should we just prefix our statement with this banal clause? "Check out how Sarah did it here when working with Y. Additionally, here's some resources." So now someone who's time is worth a lot (top tier linux maintainer) is responsible to LMGTFY for everyone who contributes?
- codyb 13y ago
  Sometimes a little politics goes a long way. You can always be grateful someone is taking their time to contribute to a project even if they're not particularly good at it yet. Version control and branching means things don't have to be implemented immediately or at all. If there's not a lot of good, I was assuming perhaps it was one part of his contribution, but if there isn't any good at all then how about "Thanks for contributing but in order to be an effective member of the team you're really going to need to work on X, Y, and Z. Unfortunately we cannot commit your patch to the code repository until this is the case. If you do work on X, Y, and Z though you should be at a point where you can contribute to quite a wide variety of areas within this project and will be a quite a valued member! We need people like you with dedication. And don't worry about it, if you look at version 0.a.b you'll see I made a bunch of the same mistakes!" If you have the time to dole out harsh criticism of someones patch you can't take the time to provide a helpful comment instead of an overtly negative one? "Oh I spent all this time reviewing your code and it sucks." is better to you than taking the what, ten or fifteen minutes to compose a quality reply? I understand the top tier linux manager's time is valuable. But if you can tell the code is wrong, then give reasons for why it is wrong, tell them you can not commit until those reasons are corrected, and do so in a polite manner. In addition, by providing resources, you make your own job easier as the quality of patches continues to improve in quality, you retain talent, and foster new talent within the software community. If you don't want to provide resources then perhaps a "Hey, if you have any questions trying to work through X, Y, and Z try to contact me here although you'll get far quicker responses on irc.freenode.net #linux".
clavalle 13y ago
When I read that it really seems one step away from: "Hello John, we recently received your contribution. It is clear you are aligned with our goal of leveraging core-competencies of a diverse group of synergistic A-players in our problem space. Your algorithm is proactive but we need it aligned to the specific performance/memory axis to support the rest of the product synergies. Sarah is a fantastic and robust resource that is empowered to impact this area of the value-add proposition. If you need to plug into any further best of breed enablement engines, please do as we are committed to our future-shapers building their capabilities to their fullest potential."

by codyb 13y ago

14113 13y ago

That implies that it's ok. I would prefer: "Hey john, thanks for the contribution though, but it's not good enough - it's currently too slow and hogs too much memory. As an example of how it should be running see sarah's Y."

codyb 13y ago
That would be the case I suppose if John's entire contribution was poor. I was thinking perhaps there might be some part of John's contribution that was actually quality and to say "hey, you know you're doing good work, it's just this part that isn't working well". Obviously we're dealing in hypotheticals here and I guess if it is the case that none of John's code works well then your approach is probably the only decent approach. If there is some code of John's that does work well than I find a lot of times it's easier to give a little compliment prior to your criticism just so they know that yes, we do appreciate your work and contributions, but in order to be more effective here is what you have to do.
andyjohnson0 13y ago
Have you ever managed or lead a team? If you have, you'll know that your job in that situation is to get the best results from the team - over a variety of time-scales. Sometimes you have to crack the whip, but mostly its important to be somewhat diplomatic and respectful while still being clear and direct, because the team is made of people who (unless it has some kind of dysfunctional brogramming-type culture) have a need for fulfilment in the work they're doing. Some cultures are more direct (eg. Dutch, Israeli, Finnish) than others (eg. Japan). If everyone on a team expects the same norms then they are going to get along well. The problem for Linus is that the "team" is a pan-cultural community with a spread of norms and (it seems to me) that Linus want to be the Linux benevolent-dictator-for-life while everyone else expects him to be a leader.

jdjb 13y ago

"Hey John, thanks for contributing" - This is only true if you are actually grateful to John. Otherwise, John is wasting your time (if his patch is complete rubbish). "There's a lot of good there but this algorithm really needs to run faster and use less memory" - Another lie (unless there actually is a lot of good there). What if there's not a lot of good? Should we just prefix our statement with this banal clause? "Check out how Sarah did it here when working with Y. Additionally, here's some resources." So now someone who's time is worth a lot (top tier linux maintainer) is responsible to LMGTFY for everyone who contributes?

codyb 13y ago
Sometimes a little politics goes a long way. You can always be grateful someone is taking their time to contribute to a project even if they're not particularly good at it yet. Version control and branching means things don't have to be implemented immediately or at all. If there's not a lot of good, I was assuming perhaps it was one part of his contribution, but if there isn't any good at all then how about "Thanks for contributing but in order to be an effective member of the team you're really going to need to work on X, Y, and Z. Unfortunately we cannot commit your patch to the code repository until this is the case. If you do work on X, Y, and Z though you should be at a point where you can contribute to quite a wide variety of areas within this project and will be a quite a valued member! We need people like you with dedication. And don't worry about it, if you look at version 0.a.b you'll see I made a bunch of the same mistakes!" If you have the time to dole out harsh criticism of someones patch you can't take the time to provide a helpful comment instead of an overtly negative one? "Oh I spent all this time reviewing your code and it sucks." is better to you than taking the what, ten or fifteen minutes to compose a quality reply? I understand the top tier linux manager's time is valuable. But if you can tell the code is wrong, then give reasons for why it is wrong, tell them you can not commit until those reasons are corrected, and do so in a polite manner. In addition, by providing resources, you make your own job easier as the quality of patches continues to improve in quality, you retain talent, and foster new talent within the software community. If you don't want to provide resources then perhaps a "Hey, if you have any questions trying to work through X, Y, and Z try to contact me here although you'll get far quicker responses on irc.freenode.net #linux".

clavalle 13y ago

When I read that it really seems one step away from: "Hello John, we recently received your contribution. It is clear you are aligned with our goal of leveraging core-competencies of a diverse group of synergistic A-players in our problem space. Your algorithm is proactive but we need it aligned to the specific performance/memory axis to support the rest of the product synergies. Sarah is a fantastic and robust resource that is empowered to impact this area of the value-add proposition. If you need to plug into any further best of breed enablement engines, please do as we are committed to our future-shapers building their capabilities to their fullest potential."