If you expect people to do things they don't feel comfortable doing, you will repeatedly be disappointed. If you are depending on coworkers to go outside their comfort zone, you will lose coworkers (and probably feel they are undependable). Even if you are right and this person is "too sensitive" in some way, they were also an important contributor who has left a project where they no longer felt comfortable. No one owes it to any of us to "put up" with how we treat them.
Like, maybe a team that resolves conflict this was would really work more efficiently! But it will certainly push out anyone who isn't comfortable with that kind of interaction, while the efficiency gains seem more uncertain.
> No one owes it to any of us to "put up" with how we treat them.
No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away.
> No, however we do owe it to ourselves to learn better how to push back on difficult people. It’s a form of self defense because difficult people, or people having a bad day and lashing out, are not going away.
I think this is a key word, though—we owe it to ourselves. We can say "boy, I did a poor job confronting that bully today." But no-one else owes it to us; we are, I think, unjustified in saying, "boy, Matthew did a poor job confronting that bully today", or at least in passing any judgment if that is our belief.
It's kind of like defensive driving. No I shouldn't have to take all these precautions because others should be following the road rules... but very often they don't. If you're in a crash and you're "in the right", you're still in a crash (as my last concussion can attest to...).
Likewise if someone is being a prick to you, sometimes you've just gotta be the bigger prick right back. No you shouldn't have to be, people should always be nice and respectful... but they're not. Most people back off, and if they don't - you've learned the valuable lesson that the person is beyond reason and you can wash your hands of it right then and there.
There are very real cultural differences and taboos against questioning and pushing back against authority. What one culture may view as normal and expected process in improvement, another is horrified and ashamed to consider. Do not assume just because you've grown up or grown accustomed to it that it's 'normal' or practiced everywhere. This is perhaps one of the biggest frictions I see in teams that are full of folks from different cultures and backgrounds.
That's my experience too. I'm Hungarian and worked or collaborated with people from a handful of nations (Japan, Korea, Tamil Nadu (India), Mumbai (India), Ukraine, Russia, Portugal, Poland, Guandong (China), Hong Kong, USA, Brazil, Nepal, Pakistan, Switzerland, France, Austria, UK, Greece, Serbia, Montenegro, South Africa, Australia, Sri Lanka, Singapore, Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Netherlands, Canada), in person, just over the past ~13 years. Before that, I was only exposed to Hungarian work culture for the first 30 years of my life, so that was my base-line.
Some of the differences in attitude towards work, co-workers and authority truly triggered rage in me. Then someone suggested that the reason for these differences are cultural, hence very deeply rooted and I can't expect to change them quickly or at all. For that reason, I should be the one who adapts, since now I understand the situation and I care to solve the problem.
I kinda agree with this assessment, but if I can put this effort in to even out cultural differences, so as the other party can, just have to make them aware of this discovery and try converge multiple times, since our goal is to work together.
There is a lot more to say, but that's how far I have the time to go now :)
Did you read the original blog post? They clearly mention at the end they posted it because they were repeatedly asked why they disengaged from the Racket community:
"Why mention any of this now? Two reasons.
Over the last year, friends in the Racket community have asked me why I’ve reduced my involvement. Absent anything else, they assume the most obvious reason: that I’m bored or frustrated with Racket as a language. That I’ve moved on to other things.
Not true. On the contrary, it seems important to reassert: I like almost everything about Racket. It’s still my favorite programming environment. I use it almost every day. I wish I could still contribute the way I did before. But I can’t subject myself to more of the same. In that sense, it feels more like exile than withdrawal.
I’ve been involved with FOSS projects for nearly 25 years. A project that depends on free contributions of time & effort—as every FOSS project does—needs to be an appealing place for others to make gifts of their time. Sure, in any community of opinionated humans, occasional frictions and disagreements are natural. But Felleisen’s outrageous hostility went far beyond anything I’d experienced."
Also this main issue occurred three years ago. It is very odd to assume that someone decided to just sit on an issue for three years and then suddenly gotcha throw it out of nowhere.
This person was bullied out of the Racket community. They quietly left rather than try to fight against aggressive personalities. That's the real story here, and what happens in 99% of similar incidents.
> Of course, I did push back on Felleisen. But there was a limit to how hard I could push. Again—I was merely a guest. In the moment, I was struggling mostly to keep my emotions in check. I did assure him that his fears about my future performance were unfounded.
I'm not sure I would classify that as "talking plainly." Words like that would put anybody on the defensive, and being on the defensive does not make people receptive to positive change.
Matthew was an invited guest speaker, he could not push back to such an extent without putting those arrangements at risk. This of course made it more important for Fellesein to moderate his behavior in that context; he should have been aware that this meant a potential source of feedback was missing.
Like, maybe a team that resolves conflict this was would really work more efficiently! But it will certainly push out anyone who isn't comfortable with that kind of interaction, while the efficiency gains seem more uncertain.