Hacker News Reader

If I had the choice between Linus' abrasive style and the fake politeness in Wikipedialand, where you can needle and provoke your enemy at will provided you don't use rude words I pick Linus a thousand times over.

Linus knows what a colleague is, and Wikipedia doesn't - over there they have enemies, not opponents. The headline calls it "verbal abuse", but they don't seem to have a grasp what abuse is.

Sure. I'll just take a third option though where people are direct but not abusive. Doesn't seem like too much to wish for.

Presumably you've heard the phrase that "we can disagree without being disagreeable".

I agree that I would much rather work with Linus than Wikipedians, but I'd also prefer working with people who I trust to give me their honest opinion without a needless verbal shelacking.

You could also ask me if i'd prefer to have my hand or my foot cut off (foot for the record), but personally my preference is to find a way to keep all of my limbs intact.

The point over which I absolutely support Sarah Sharp is that what Linus is doing is essentially hazing. He's trying to enforce societal norms by handing out verbal beatings, and trying to encourage others to enforce his norms via his methods.

That is a problem. Tart replies regarding criticism of code, or how code is managed is one thing. Trying to encourage a culture of verbal abuse is entirely another.

------------------------------------

Sidebar: There are organizations that do work these sorts of verbal dressing downs as a systematic tactic. The Marines are famous for it. The objective is to provide shared hardship to encourage bonding amongst a group of trainees. They're also famous for fucking it up (so much so that we've got films like Full Metal Jacket to memorialize the experience).

But FOSS and Kernel contribution is not like the Marines. There is no inherent unit of social support to fall into. If you're lucky enough to be part of a group, or to have someone say "oh yeah, that's how Linus is" then maybe you get over it and inure yourself to the abuse. Or maybe you just stop contributing to the Kernel.

Or maybe you just stop contributing to the Kernel.

I'm sure there are many potential contributors who have dropped out due to discomfort with communications. (Although it seems Linus reserves the most emotional tirades for long-time contributors whose performance he feels has declined.) However, does it make any sense to argue that the kernel needs more contributors? ISTM the kernel is moving as fast as can be expected or desired: some distros lag the kernel by increasing amounts.

I personally hate the "corporate" style culture of being passive agressive, avoiding confrontations, being polite all the times and whatnot.

Agreed. If only that were what she's talking about:

  To me, being "professional" means treating each other with respect.  I
  can show emotion, express displeasure, be direct, and still show respect
  for my fellow developers.
  
  For example, I find the following statement to be both direct and
  respectful, because it's criticizing code, not the person:
  
  "This code is SHIT!  It adds new warnings and it's marked for stable
  when it's clearly *crap code* that's not a bug fix.  I'm going to revert
  this merge, and I expect a fix from you IMMEDIATELY."

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/18/340

  We're adults, not high schoolers.  We can figure out how to deliver
  harsh technical criticism without resorting to name calling, cussing at
  people, or personal attacks.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/16/554

  You are in a position of power.  Stop verbally abusing your developers.

https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/7/15/427

Swearing is not a problem. In fact, people who swear tend to be more honest than those who don't. You don't have to be polite, you don't have to avoid confrontations. What you have to be is respectful. You should never attack a person, you should attack their actions. But only after you understand.

  > In fact, people who swear tend to be more honest than those who don't

[citation needed]

There's a whole lot of context involved here. Yes, there are very honest people who curse like sailors (fishermen especially [1]), likewise there are honest people who wouldn't throw about farthing filth about fornication willy-nilly[2].

I would add that ideas, in addition to actions, are fair game.

  [1] Deadliest Catch
  [2] Ex-Mormon colleague

Your sources are a TV show and an ex-mormon?

The TV show was cheek. The ex-Mormon, I've known for 12 years.

Which is what Linus did...

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."

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."

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.

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.

"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?

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".

>> 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.

One of the problems with assumptions here is that kernel maintainers by definition shall know that their code is wrong and why it is wrong . If this is not true, they shall not be kernel maintainers.

Another one is that Linus does not need to retain talent that can not perform to acceptable standards.

Please note that acceptable standards are different for different people.

No this is totally true and I agree. But if you can mold someone into performing at acceptable standards than you have more talent which produces better products faster. That's basically my reasoning for my approach.

If you do not know why the code is wrong, then tell them what it is doing wrong in a similar fashion. "Hey John, I see you updated this patch. Thanks but it seems to be hogging memory. What can you do about that?"

Perhaps you point them to people who have worked in that area before. "Well you working on I/O, you know Tim over here has worked in that area before, he might be busy but if you can't figure it out on your own maybe you can shoot him a question and see if replies."

I guess a kernel maintainer may never make a mistake since you assume it is a tautology that all kernel maintainers by definition know when and where and why their code is wrong or they could not be kernel maintainers. Or you're implying that any kernel retainer will, upon being notified, no matter the language of the rebuke, immediately know how to fix it and will also be willing to do so.

There are also different levels of experience for different people. It doesn't mean you should throw them off the ship or so harshly rebuke them that they never return to the project.

And if there are different standards than you probably don't need to give everyone the harshest standard.

Alright but I've posted enough in this thread.

Your comments seem entirely premised on the patch being "complete rubbish". If that is not true (and, there's nothing in the GP's comment to indicate otherwise), and actually "there's a lot of good there", why should the maintainer not be grateful to John?

Of course, if the patch is helpful the response should be a positive one. I'm not debating that point.

I'm debating the fake politeness that is expected when a patch is in fact rubbish. It's more impolite to lie to someone and make them feel better by phrasing such as "It's good but...". It's much better to simply cut to the "but" part and tell it how it is.

Fellow developers are not clients who are our responsibility to make feel good at the end of the day.

You need to decide whether the examples given are outright lies or are just hypothetical. You can't have both.

But I agree with your point, not everyone has the skills and mentality to be mentors and/or teachers to others who may wish to learn. It's just too bad so many have to be complete assholes about going about informing people of this fact.

Furthermore, you can't assume that because someone is unwilling to be a mentor that it's always the mentor's fault for not having enough patience or the right attitude.

Sometimes the student just isn't worth investing your time and effort into.

Totally true, sometimes someone doesn't make for a good student.

But I don't think it should be up to a bad teacher to decide who is a bad student.

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."

I totally agree. I believe if I can throw a "fuck you" at you and you can take it without creating much of a fuss, it'll just be easier for me to pick out your mistakes right up without resorting to fake politeness. And you could do the same. This would only make it easier to get things done. Also who doesn't like to get things done their way, when its their own project?

Also I can't help but agree to Linus' response mail.

Why does it have to be fake politeness? Why can't we have real politeness?

Not everyone is wired the same way right? Linus is being his way. If you are a polite person, you are not expected to swear around. Be polite and that'd be wonderful. The same goes for those who just aren't polite. Why expect them to fake it? Let them be themselves.

That's an interesting question.

Maybe all politeness is fake to some degree (you're interfacing with someone by being nice regardless of what that person does), but we say "fake politeness" when you're spending a lot of energy to keep the politeness filter on.

Tell me if you have a theory about real vs fake politeness.

When it comes to fuck yous, I hate them because they don't communicate anything, although combined with a foreknowledge of the person's impulse control abilities you might be able to figure out their emotional state (which I usually don't care about.) It's just abuse, and if we're going to abuse each other with no content, I might as well punch you, which is fun. Swear words are often just more shit to wade through to get to content.

Sweary people like to direct their frustration outwards, but that doesn't necessarily make them direct. I see little relationship between people who throw hissyfits and people who are honest in the way I like. The honesty I like cuts down the search space for reaching pragmatic solutions; it doesn't simply tell me that Billy's blood sugar is getting low.

'Moving parts in rubbing contact require lubrication to avoid excessive wear. Honorifics and formal politeness provide lubrication where people rub together. Often the very young, the untraveled, the naïve, the unsophisticated deplore these formalities as "empty," "meaningless," or "dishonest," and scorn to use them. No matter how "pure" their motives, they thereby throw sand into machinery that does not work too well at best.'

I know I've seen that quote before, but I forget where.

As someone who (I don't think) has any form of autism, or asbergers I still find it difficult to parse the intent behind overly polite messages, or those that try and avoid confrontation. I'd very much prefer to have messages that were particularly vicious, as it'd make the intent far clearer to me.

If interpreted correctly Linus' remarks about the value of having a panel discussion on the issues Sarah raised, he does think it might be possible to find an accomodation on lkml that suits both him and Sarah.

Sarah was not passive aggressive, and she did the opposite of avoid confrontation on this matter. It seems odd to me that she is accused of wanting these aspects of corporate style.