←back to thread

144 points ksec | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.202s | source
Show context
criticalfault ◴[] No.44466573[source]
I've been following this for a while now.

Kent is in the wrong. Having a lead position in development I would kick Kent of the team.

One thing is to challenge things. What Kent is doing is something completely different. It is obvious he introduced a feature, not only a Bugfix.

If the rules are set in a way that rc1+ gets only Bugfixes, then this is absolutely clear what happens with the feature. Tolerating this once or twice is ok, but Kent is doing this all the time, testing Linus.

Linus is absolutely in the right to kick this out and it's Kent's fault if he does so.

replies(8): >>44466668 #>>44467387 #>>44467968 #>>44468790 #>>44468966 #>>44469158 #>>44470642 #>>44470736 #
alphazard ◴[] No.44468966[source]
> Having a lead position in development I would kick Kent of the team.

I've seen this sentiment a lot lately. That disagreeable top performers have to be disposed of because they are "toxic" or "problematic".

You aren't doing your job as a leader if this is your attitude to good engineers. Engineering is a field where a small amount of the people create a large amount of the value. You can either understand that, and take it upon yourself to integrate disagreeable yet high performing people into the team, paving over the rough patches yourself. Or you can oust them, and quite literally take a >50% productivity hit on your team.

A disagreeable person will take up more of your time as a manager, but a high performer is worth significantly more of your time. When these traits co-occur in the same person, the cost-benefit is complicated. The reason we talk about this problem a lot in tech is because it is legitimately a tough call, with errors in both directions. Wishing that the right move was always as simple as kicking someone off the team doesn't make it true, although it may relieve you from having to contend with the decision.

replies(11): >>44469067 #>>44469102 #>>44471563 #>>44472193 #>>44472275 #>>44472301 #>>44472325 #>>44472355 #>>44472556 #>>44473093 #>>44473839 #
1. brookst ◴[] No.44472301[source]
It’s no different from giving up on someone who writes terrible code or creates got hell.

Sure, you talk to them. And sure, you explain what the problem is and treat them like an adult. But ultimately it is completely acceptable to give up.

Peoples’ potential matters to parents, and to mentors. A high-potential, low-performing person can be a project worth taking on, but they are not an obligation in the workplace, especially for someone as senior and time-constrained as Linus.