|
|
|
|
|
|
by rjh29
977 days ago
|
|
|
I understand why it could be selection bias. Let's say there are 100 open source projects with openly hostile communication. Only Linux succeeds. You can't point to Linux as proof that hostile communication results in success based on that 1/100 chance. Similarly you can't just use a single anecdote to prove anything either. I agree that the argument could be expressed better, but I personally understood the intention. |
|
|
But sure. We can debate the premise.
If even only Linux and Git succeeded, out of hundreds of projects managed with hostility, that’s two projects; one guy. fWIW, out of hundreds of every other projects NOT managed with hostility (and similarly running on as many computers), most of those, that I’m aware of, aren’t flourishing like Linux is. Usually they suffer from attracting talent and people. Perhaps the hostility of Linus makes the projects more visible (bad news is good news in the PR world), and some people take it as a challenge to succeed there. Thus the project flourishes, vs. fail from lack of talent.
I’d also argue that I’ve (personally) let some truly shitty code into code bases at $dayjob over the years because there was simply no “nice way” to say it was so terrible. Trying to argue on technical merits would just go round-and-round until I gave up. I’m pretty sure I’ve used the same tactics a couple of times to merge some shitty code I don’t care about and actually want someone to rewrite if they ever need to change it.
The point is, had we have been hostile (and managed to not get fired), the code could be hundreds of times better. So, I’d be willing to bet, there isn’t a selection bias here and hostile behavior attracts talent (due to being highly visible; popcorn factor), forcing people to actually rethink really shitty code, and letting people be more candid about how they really feel.