> But maybe that comes at a cost. If we set aside that desire and focus on what we’re really trying to do here — make good software — then maybe we’ll open up some different possibilities. By constraining the number of things we have to agree on, and the number of hours we have to spend agreeing on them, we naturally open ourselves to a diverse world of talented people.
Much as we might wish otherwise, I think this article is right that informality and diversity are in tension (though I think it's massively wrong to conflate informality with long hours; it's very much possible to have a culture where you drink alcohol, play Rock Band, play board games, but still go home after your 35 hours/week). But having to give up informality would be a very heavy price. For me a comfortable life is the end and making good software is the means. But even if your goal is good software, looking at the past couple of decades of big professional companies being displaced by scrappy startups, informal organizations seem a lot better at producing good software.