[CriticalSection]

Having worked for corporate software projects and for free software projects, I can't say that free software projects are dominated by personnel issues any more than corporate software projects.

The main difference is things tend to happen out in the open for free software projects, and things happen behind closed doors within corporations. So it just seems like there is more drama, because issues are hashed out in public, things are not swept under the rug.

[infodroid]

> The main difference is things tend to happen out in the open...

I don't think this is just due to a difference in the degree of openness in dealing with personal issues.

It's also the fact that project maintainers can use the project to advance their personal agenda, while a company cannot do that to the same extent.

For example, imagine if a company terminated a business partnership based only on the suspicion of sexual discrimination at the partner firm.

I think most people would find this premature or inappropriate, especially if the partner firm was not found guilty in a court, or if it did not admit any wrongdoing, and there isn't a history of such allegations at the firm.

[EduardoBautista]

There is no reason for the personal stuff to be out in the open in open source.

[geofft]

I think it's a motivating factor to attract contributions.

I was catching up on C++11/14/17 after spending a lot of time in Rust recently and I realized that I see the C++ standards committee as this nameless faceless void, and the Rust team as these friendly people on GitHub and IRC. There's this college kid who thinks using "pre-pooping your pants" as a technical term is a good plan, this Brooklyn hipster who really likes communism, etc. Whether or not I endorse their "personal stuff", I have a sense that there's a community of real people and not just names on a community, and that makes Rust as a language attractive. If I want to contribute something to the language, there are people I can talk to, and there's a clear way for me, as I am, to do that. I have no idea how to propose something to C++ without working for a company that has a seat on the standards committee. Maybe there is a way, but I'm certainly not under the impression that there is a way.

Projects that are more able to attract contributions will be healthier, more technically productive, and more secure (via Linus' Law). It's meaningless to try to focus purely on the technical if you don't have the people to do the technical work.

[smitherfield]

The C++ standards committee is pretty active on their mailing list[1], which is also how you'd submit a proposal.

[1] https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/m/?fromgroups#!...

[HelloNurse]

I see C++ and Rust in the opposite way: Rust is developed by Mozilla for its needs and about as open as something from Apple, while the C++ committees include lots of respected experts, many of which popular and/or friendly.

[Argorak]

If that were the case, much of the community-driven work going towards - for example - specific embedded targets wouldn't happen. What is the case is that one of the major users of Rust is Servo, which definitely runs into more problems at large scale then other projects.

Rust is primarily community-driven and that is a conscious choice by Mozilla. If it were primarily for Mozilla, we wouldn't run research into how production users use it.

Finally, Mozilla cannot be compared with Apple at all, for all that's bad about them, there's an extreme amount of stuff that happens very much in the open and the clear, with the possibility to influence it.

We have the discussion processes you want, but the language is 2 years old, it's certainly not comparable to C++ on that angle, yet.

[vidarh]

Maybe, maybe not, but the point is there is a much lower barrier for people to do so whether or not there is any reason for it when it doesn't affect their livelihood.

There is also a much lower barrier for someone else to take it public for the same reason.

[praptak]

If personal issues create problems in a corporate project, people get fired. This alone creates a chilling effect - people put up with a lot of crap before they make the problems public, see Uber or any other story about a toxic workplace.

[infodroid]

The chilling effect seems only true for toxic environments. Yet most workplaces are not toxic in the way that you might imagine Uber to be. There are many tech companies (large and small) that are pro-active about creating a good environment. Also, the workplace makes you think twice about bad behavior, because it has real consequences like losing your job, unlike on the internet. See also cookiecaper's comment.

[Neliquat]

Agreed. As an open sourcer, a night at the bar and smartphone in hand is all it takes to get the ball rolling when the inevitable issues start appearing in your inbox. You take your oss projects personal, for better or worse. Good take on the issue, when (you feel) the whole company is fucked, its hard to stand up and declare an issue local to you.

[flukus]

> If personal issues create problems in a corporate project, people get fired.

Or promoted, or anything inbetween. Some corporate projects live for years because a certain manager can't be seen to have wasted so much money on a failed one. Personal/political issues are everywhere in the corporate world.

[cookiecaper]

I disagree. I think that free software has more of these issues because it's done on a volunteer basis.

The commitment and interdependence of the employment relationship smooths over most disagreements at work. People may not like it, but they stay aboard because, well, what are they going to do, leave? And what's the company going to do, fire them?

No such arrangement exists in voluntary efforts. People will work together fine as long as they all agree on most things. Once a real conflict emerges, without the underlying commitment and interdependence, people just decide it's not worth the frustration and walk away.

[eeZah7Ux]

> in voluntary efforts ... people just decide it's not worth the frustration and walk away

You make it sounds like it's a bad thing. Being able to focus your energies on healthy communities in a feature.

> employment [...] smooths over most disagreements at work

No. It just hides them. Backstabbing is popular, so it is disenchantment and cynicism. People biases turn into harsh peer performance feedback, refusal to hire and poor cooperation. Sociopaths get promoted.

[infodroid]

> You make it sounds like it's a bad thing. Being able to focus your energies on healthy communities in a feature.

No, it's definitely a bug.

Walking away from personal conflicts weakens projects and communities through fragmentation. It feeds the selfish desire for safety and isolation at the expense of developing the more healthy ability to put aside personal differences in pursuit of a greater goal.

As a result, these so-called "healthy communities" will eventually end up more fragile and more fragmented than their original counterparts, especially since personal conflicts are inevitable in any project. What a fine way to derail a movement.

> No. It just hides them...

This is only true for toxic workplaces, but most workplaces are not toxic. There are many tech companies (large and small) that are pro-active about creating a good environment.

[infodroid]

Yes, there's something about the workplace that creates the sort of bonds that make you think twice before doing or saying something stupid.