| |||||||||||||
Debian switching to EGLIBCDebian switching to EGLIBCPosted May 7, 2009 5:16 UTC (Thu) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600)In reply to: Debian switching to EGLIBC by alankila Parent article: Debian switching to EGLIBC
> Any sane cost function weighs between costs and benefits. If this guy
> was worth, say, 100 of your other programmers, perhaps you should > tolerate up to 100 times more rudeness in compensation and still count > yourself coming ahead.
There are three fallacies with this approach that make it wrong. The first one is the idea that there's some magic number that you can derive that gives you the worth of a person and eir contribution to a specific project or goal. There's a whole sociology course of reasons there, but a simpler one might be that it gets down to the 'mythical man-month' problem - you can't just hire another 100 programmers and make the project go 100 times faster, or even as fast.
Secondly, you're biasing our reactions by picking a large number. If Ulrich is worth 1.1 other programmers, what do you do?
However, what it really comes down to for me is that there are a bunch of groups - programmers, Red Hat, open source enthusiasts - who should just say "no" to antisocial behaviour. Calling people idiots or defining their work as a waste of time should never be excusable. If Ulrich was being sexist, defamatory or racist, would that still be OK (even if he was worth 100 other programmers)? I personally say no.
When we implicitly or explicitly excuse this kind of obnoxious behaviour, we make it acceptable. That to me is just not on. We can hardly say "show me the code" if we then scare everyone off who tries to contribute code. There are plenty of ways to deal with the bug reports that the EGLIBC people link to that would have been polite and helpful but still firm in his opinion and would have taken even less time to do than Ulrich expended on his inflammatory outbursts. We should learn better ways to interact, rather than excuse bad behaviour.
Have fun,
Paul
(Log in to post comments)
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 7, 2009 10:06 UTC (Thu) by NAR (subscriber, #1313) [Link]
I think software development is unique in the sense that there are actually people who are 10 times as productive as some of their peers, even in the same workgroup. So probably it's worth to employ a couple of other people who hide the "guru" from the users. Don't forget that people actually have the right to be sexist, defamatory or racist.
Character flaws Posted May 7, 2009 21:55 UTC (Thu) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link] I still think that PaulWay is right about the first fallacy, but maybe not the way he intended. Sometimes an individual's worth cannot be measured as 100 normal fellows, because sometimes he or she can enable things which were not even feasible before. There is no replacement even with hordes of developers. Think about Science and the contributions of great individuals -- the kind of leap of a Pasteur or a Newton cannot be done by a thousand clever fellows. Engineering is sometimes the same, as is software engineering.About character flaws I think you are quite right. In some contexts buffering the guru is an effective way to dealing with an ill-mannered engineer.
Character flaws Posted May 8, 2009 1:55 UTC (Fri) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
You raise a great point! I think that's another good reason why saying "well, he's a good coder, so he's allowed to annoy other people" is just wrong.
Have fun,
Paul
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 8, 2009 1:54 UTC (Fri) by PaulWay (✭ supporter ✭, #45600) [Link]
> Don't forget that people actually have the right to be sexist, defamatory or racist.
Yeah, right. Try being sexist, defamatory or racist in the workplace and see how your contract covers you. Try being sexist, defamatory or racist on a public internet forum and see how the forum's or your ISP's conditions of use work. Try getting up in a public place and being sexist, defamatory or racist and see how you go with the police.
People have the right to their own thoughts, which I think is where you're coming from. But public behaviour is what's in question here. And I'll bet you a beer that Ulrich's contract with Red Hat allows them to fire him for being sexist, defamatory or racist in public.
And even if there is some specific condition where being sexist, defamatory or racist is allowed, I still reckon it's bad behaviour. I don't care if someone is a thousand times better at coding than anyone else, being rude and obnoxious to other people is bad for that person,for the projects they work for and for the community they're involved in.
So to me it seems pretty counterproductive to hide behind some technical legal argument to excuse behaviour which, as I said originally, is completely unnecessary and caused Ulrich more hassle rather than less.
Have fun,
Paul
Don't be so sure Posted May 8, 2009 18:08 UTC (Fri) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] Yeah, right. Try being sexist, defamatory or racist in the workplace and see how your contract covers you. If you are working for US Company - it'll be written in contract. In other countries it's free right (some European countries are emulation US but to smaller degree). You can be fired if you disrupt the team, but just for being sexist or racist? Puhlease. When our company was bought by US one we had special sessions to explain exactly what natural things (like sexist jokes or jokes about other minorities) we shouldn't do from now on. Everyone agreed that it's idiotic, but hey - these guys are paying me, they establish rules. Try being sexist, defamatory or racist on a public internet forum and see how the forum's or your ISP's conditions of use work. Probably you are visiting totally different forms from me - because I'm seeing sexist, defamatory and racist remarks quite often. And not just from trolls. Again: if we are not talking about US where (as Heinlein noted half-sentury ago) everyone is so proud to point out that they have absolutely nothing against your skin color, face or sexual orientation... Try getting up in a public place and being sexist, defamatory or racist and see how you go with the police. For being sexist? This is a joke. For being defamatory or racist... possibility is there but you need to spend A LOT OF effort to reach this point.
Right of being defamatory? Posted May 11, 2009 11:01 UTC (Mon) by incase (subscriber, #37115) [Link]
Honestly, your freedom of speech ends where you are hurting the dignity of others. You can be an asshole if you want to, but you should not insult others (actually, insulting rather than critizising is a legal offense here)
In Germany, the topmost grant our constitution grants it dignity. Freedom of thought, religion and speech is also in their of course, but it is below the grants for dignity, and some other things like prohibition of discrimination because of race, sex/gender, religion and other things, your right not to be injured in physical or mental well-being etc.
regards,
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 8, 2009 10:46 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
"The first one is the idea that there's some magic number that you can derive that gives you the worth of a person"
Fair enough. It was a sketch of an argument. I picked a large, round number to make it obvious that I was not serious. What do you think 100 times more rude even means? It doesn't really mean anything.
"Secondly, you're biasing our reactions by picking a large number. If Ulrich is worth 1.1 other programmers, what do you do?"
In the argument, he is allowed to be up to 1.1 times more rude to compensate for technical prowess.
"Calling people idiots or defining their work as a waste of time should never be excusable."
I'll pick on the word "never". Let's take it literally. If a person is an idiot, and the work is waste of time, perhaps it would be good idea to call it such? I don't see what denying reality gets you, other than blinders that cause you to make mistakes.
Debian switching to EGLIBC Posted May 8, 2009 10:53 UTC (Fri) by alankila (subscriber, #47141) [Link]
I already regret the last paragraph. Let's just say that I agree that it's good to be a polite, reasonable person. I just am not so sure that hard-fast rules such as "it's never ok to be rude" are reasonable. I see the matter such: there is a palette of expressions, and every one of these may have its uses.
To skillfully use this palette is completely another matter: it's horribly crude to use wrong kind of expression, and doesn't reflect well on the speaker. Communication is, after all, a process where you need to make yourself understood to another. Whether I just transgressed remains to be seen...
|
|||||||||||||