[oersted]

I suppose that what I'm advocating is being passionate about the technical problem, and only the technical problem. Making decisions based on facts and principled reasoning, and not vague aesthetic preferences or personal animosity.

This is no utopia, and it is not rare, it's pretty basic professionalism and engineering discipline. If you really care about the problem you are solving, you'll push the rest of the baggage aside, especially your ego.

Surely name-calling and making unfounded gut judgements based on us-vs-them tribalism, like is seen in that response, is not very productive. He demonstrated no intention to solve the problem, no acknowledgements that it exists, no explanation why the solution is not appropriate, what alternative solutions might be better... He had no interest in working together to find the best path forward. He was simply being territorial and scaring off those that did not align with his Holy Taste, whatever that is.

[vladms]

I see it as a trade-off. There will be people passionate and rational enough about a project to make it work 90% while being a total jerk for the rest 10%. Would that make me put in the effort to do all the work? If jerk people "push it" too much, on too many topics, projects will be forked. But I think we will always have some that will manage to be "just acceptable" ...

[isaacremuant]

> Making decisions based on facts and principled reasoning, and not vague aesthetic preferences or personal animosity.

You're like companies claiming that "we make decisions based on data".

Believe your own Kool aid but reality is much more nuanced and power/leadership/intuition based than "data based".

I don't want to get into politics but it would be extremely easy for me to find several examples where you'll claim something and when I say that's emotional and tribal you'll decide I must be <label>.

I don't even care about this specific example but about your initial generalization from it. Either you talk about this specific case only or you make and prove your generalizations in a "rational and unemotional" way, right?