Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by rpcastagna 3507 days ago
I think ldfdr made a good point in his sibling comment that deeming something as "unpleasant" is highly tied to your personal perceptions of what civility is, etc, which is generally rooted in your culture and where you grew up. I think we have to work to understand each other as much as possible and understand people come into conversations with different expectations. I think with someone like Linus we also have to realize that as a community founder he has a disproportionate influence in setting community norms, and people who want to get involved will tend to naturally gravitate towards his communication style. You wouldn't go to France and demand that everyone speak English all the time; we have to work to accommodate each other, and part of that is not assigning value judgements to a communication style.
3 comments

part of that is not assigning value judgements to a communication style.

I disagree with this kind of pluralism. Communication style and skill matter deeply, but styles aren't simply "different but equal". In the current context, it's easy for technical people to dismiss everything but the "content", usually a kind of reductio ad absurdum to "technical content". But communication, by definition, involves the audience's perception. If your communication style inhibits your audience's understanding or even their willingness to listen, then you are simply a bad communicator.

Case study: some years back, I was heavily involved in hand drumming. A really excellent master drummer had recently immigrated and settled in my area. The community was very supportive, but the local students had a serious problem with him: he was an abusive asshat as an instructor. This was definitely a cultural style, one that was the ubiquitous norm in his home culture, particularly with a large body of children as the primary students. But it was absolutely off-putting to enthusiastic, self-motivated Western adults who were there to learn. They weren't making mistakes because they were lazy or dumb or inattentive, but just because they were new. Fortunately, community members realized this, supported him, and he switched his style in record time... to both his own and his students delight. His own skills and his ability to mentor were never in doubt, but his communication style utterly destroyed his ability to actually communicate effectively.

So yes, I'll agree that cultural understanding is really important for both the communicator and their audience. But there's a line to be drawn at outright abuse. Just because it's the norm elsewhere doesn't make it acceptable anywhere. Some approaches to communication are simply more effective than others. Failing to realize the human impact of your communication style on your audience, or worse, realizing that it's negative and doubling down on it, make you an ineffective jerk.

> If your communication style inhibits your audience's understanding or even their willingness to listen, then you are simply a bad communicator.

It's certainly not that simple. This only makes sense if your goal is to communicate in a culturally-agnostic manner, which is not something you can reliably do. It's like flag burning: you can't really communicate the same point better in another way. It at least makes some sense to tromp on people's emotions in a context where you are trying to teach them that their emotions are an obstacle to success.

It is important for the teacher to understand the student, but it is arguably more important for the student to understand the teacher.

I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying. I'm not trying to argue that there's some total ordering on the set of communication styles (whatever that might mean), and/or that there's some kind of "ideal" communication style.

But sometimes an asshat is just an asshat. There are boundaries of negativity past which it's basically never productive to cross, and telling people who've received that kind of behavior that they should just grow a thick skin ... is pointing the finger the wrong direction.

Unless you're teaching philosophy or some sort of self-help seminar, IT'S NOT YOUR JOB to teach people that "their emotions are an obstacle to success"
Don't tell me what my job is.
Linus' rudeness is not culture but an abandonement thereof. For being influential he should only be held to a higher standard. His bad example should certainly not be followed. Sincerely, your friendly non-native English co-speaker.
Has Linus ever been rude to you? Have any of your friends complained about taking the brunt of his rudeness? If so, that would be really interesting. From what I've seen, there is basically nobody who has actually complained, "Linus was rude to me." It seems to be a meme that consists almost entirely of putting words in other people's mouths.
https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/12/23/75

For what it's worth, coworkers have pointed out to me how much of a bully Linus has been. I'm not sure it matters that the bullying wasn't directed at them. Bullying is still bullying.

To put it another way, would you want your manager to speak to you how Linus spoke to Mauro? Even if it was deserved?

Linus also doubles down and insists it's ok: http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2013/07/linus-...

We have civility rules on HN for a reason, for example. I don't think civility is artificial in the ways that Linus is saying. You can be courteous to someone you're in command of.

So the only example we can find is when a senior dev, that should rightfully know the rules of kernel development by heart, is pulling not just one but two rookie mistakes within a short time span? And we do not expect Torvalds to fly of the handle at that?
Sarah Sharp leaving the kernel community comes to mind (although Torvalds is not mentioned by name but more a perspective on the whole community).

http://sarah.thesharps.us/2015/10/05/closing-a-door/

I wouldn't want my manager to speak to me the way Linux spoke to Mauro. I also wouldn't want my manager to tell me to program in Java. I also wouldn't want people to do to me a lot of the things they do in the bedroom. But as long as they don't do it to me, and the people who are doing it are freely consenting, I do not consider it my place to tell them what they may or may not do.
At what level are these people freely consenting? They want to change the kernel and there's only one main linux kernel. So they deal with the bullying gatekeeping and abuse. The idea that they all love Linus's antics is ridiculous.
For those that just click the first link and think that it might be a one time tirade. I have a good friend that has had to deal with him extensively and he sounds like a belligerent a-hat all the time.
I'd just like to note that in some interactions I had with Linus, he was very polite, when he had some reasons to be impolite. I think the blunt interactions are almost always to do with things done by people who should know better.

It's much more newsworthy that Linus was rude, than that he wasn't. News is biased. Who knew!

So if things don't happen to me, I should turn a blind eye. What a nice principle for a thriving community!
He did set the norms, but it's not like he's a godlike being with infinite wisdom or something. If people in his community don't agree with the norms he's established, there's nothing wrong with trying to buck those trends. I would not compare that to going to France and insisting that everyone speak English. Rather, if enough people in his community dislike the examples he sets, then in the analogy, Linus is the person who is demanding everyone speaks English. Community norms are heavily influenced by community leaders, but ultimately community norms are whatever the community consensus is, regardless of the leadership.

None of this is assigning rightness or wrongness to anyone, it's just group dynamics. If he drives people away, he may be OK with that. It may even be his desired outcome. There's nothing wrong with him running things the way he sees fit, and there's nothing wrong with other people thinking he's an ahole and going their separate ways. I'm much more sympathetic to the latter than the former though. In my experience, leaders who are too focused on getting people to respect their authority above all else tend to be the "B's" in the "A's hire A's, B's hire C's" management cliche.