It’s an interesting point but maybe it was a step too far deep in a tense discussion that started with a full fledged apology. I think the person posting it wanted to make sure DHH knew why the list was wrong but he felt like he already said it was wrong. But here’s the crux:
-
Show this thread
-
Even when you’re the CTO and you’re eating crow by apologizing to staff, if one response is you didn’t do enough, TAKE THE LOSS and be quiet and think over why this person didn’t think you got it. DON’T GET DEFENSIVE. Repeat: don’t get defensive.
5 replies 55 retweets 729 likesShow this thread -
There’s a tendency to always have the last word in an argument that is also working here. In my mind, this whole basecamp thing hinges on DHH flipping out after seeing “genocide” on a graphic when he could have said “harsh! but fair, we won’t do these things going forward”pic.twitter.com/7e3NVv5xDg
12 replies 26 retweets 421 likesShow this thread -
I’ve seen far too many execs refuse to take the L and apologize or step back in the heat of the moment and so many seemingly small things blew up into giant problems because in a thread of 50 comments an exec couldn’t ignore one thing they saw as a jab or barb or dunk on them.
2 replies 24 retweets 400 likesShow this thread -
An exec should take the high road, do big picture stuff & protect employees. But DHH didn’t deescalate, he dug through years of chat logs to repost a hypocritical gotcha from the person who posted criticism which is remarkably petty! DHH’s gotta win every argument at all costs!
8 replies 31 retweets 630 likesShow this thread -
There's a path to redemption but it would be tough. DHH could acknowledge he flipped out, they could admit "no politics at work" is ridiculous (and impossible to avoid when making big choices in software design) and try to rebuild from there. But instead they'll triple down.
12 replies 21 retweets 433 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @mathowie
Redemption is such a striking word choice. Isn't the whole point of this policy that there's a large cohort of people don't want to see struggle sessions and self-criticism culture take over their workplace?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @Pinboard
I read it as the people at the top don't want to be in diversity discussions or consider other viewpoints pretty much ever, yeah.
1 reply 0 retweets 7 likes -
Replying to @mathowie
I suspect that there's also employees who have observed that diversity discussions without boundaries will turn into purity tests and a race to the left, and may welcome such a change
9 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Maciej, you’re one of my heroes so—wtf are you talking about? Do you have any evidence that happened here? Why wouldn’t you believe the reporting that someone brought up that pyramid and DHH got defensive, what about that sounds implausible to you?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
The reporting sounds completely plausible (though I suspect there was a long list of other incidents before this). The pyramid is an excellent example of the kind of dynamic I'm talking about, and the response is one I agree with. You gotta stop this ridiculousness somewhere.
-
-
I'm sorry my response disappoints you! Hopefully on the next thing we'll agree again.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Thank you for your response, altho I’m more confused. 1) how was the pyramid an example of a purity test? 2) what was the response you agreed with, the dredging up the person’s old msg or banning all discussion of “political” or “societal” issues at work (whatever that means)?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes - Show replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.