HN Theater @HNTheaterMonth

Google’s research on team success points to “everyone speaking approximately the same amount of time and being heard” as one of the major factors, along with safety to speak one’s mind and make mistakes.

I’m too many meetings the highest paid person takes the most airtime.

If this balance could be a visible metric that would contribute to more productive meetings.

The metric was mentioned in the second half of this talk.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

> These developers chose to volunteer their time to corporations.

Not so, these developers chose to volunteer their time to benefit the commons, and corporations occupy the same spaces once in a while. Whether or not there are abusive companies who stake out those projects for rent-seeking, to build walled gardens of their own, looting the commons making money for themselves and giving nothing back, is really not a function of the person who did something good for everyone's benefit.

We shouldn't be asking the person who is doing the good thing to change, friend! Reciprocity is an evolutionarily acquired trait, and while you can't count on favors to be repaid all of the time, anyway this is not a requirement in order for us to benefit from reciprocity.

Students of psychology have understood this as one of the favorable characteristics of human behavior which enabled us to survive up to this point. The idea that you can give someone something and receive something bigger in return, while both parties benefit, has been a part of community building for as long as humans formed communities. I would like to share this Sandi Metz talk about it in case you have an hour and want to hear more, I'm not the student of Psychology and didn't make this stuff up myself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

> You're Insufficiently Persuasive by Sandi Metz

⬐ SquishyPanda23

> Not so, these developers chose to volunteer their time to benefit the commons, and corporations occupy the same spaces once in a while. Whether or not there are abusive companies who stake out those projects for rent-seeking, to build walled gardens of their own, looting the commons making money for themselves and giving nothing back, is really not a function of the person who did something good for everyone's benefit.

It actually is, that's my point. The developers knew there were licensing arrangements that guarded against that possibility, and they chose licenses specifically designed to allow such looting.

Reciprocity is great. But if you license your code in a way that says "Feel free to take this and make money off it and give nothing back" when there are other options, then you made that decision and there is no obvious fairness argument that somebody should be punished for doing what you granted them license to do.

⬐ yebyen

The point of the linked video, at least the relevant part about the street scammers that hand you something and then ask for money, is that we actually banned that kind of behavior in public spaces because it was exploitative.

People have evolved to trust in reciprocity, because it's to our mutual benefit as a society that reciprocity remains a thing, and behaviors which are pathologically exploitative of this evolved trust in reciprocity are fully in the wrong. We decided it and made laws about it, something like 30 years ago. I learned this watching the keynote myself, and was surprised (as it actually hasn't stopped, in spite of legal protections which you might assume put a permanent end to the practice, to the contrary there are still monks handing out little plastic bracelets outside of the Smithsonian in DC, and no shortage of people who are not wise to it, with the $20 to spare.)

If the next generation of developers can't anymore trust in reciprocity and they have to decide on non-free licenses as a result of these companies which plainly don't understand reciprocity, we will all have lost something profoundly important. (And if we assume these companies and their behavior is purely exploitative now, what makes you think a legal machination like non-permissive licensing is going to have more success at getting them to stop doing that? You might have more avenues for recourse, but at what cost...)

It's not about fairness or punishment, it's about protection of our shared mutual benefit via social cues, and we can exile or something like exclude them from polite society if they are not well-behaved. From the receiving end it might look like a punishment, but I prefer to think of it more like as "corrective prodding" or "defensive posturing," and if it works the bad behavior will change, or if it doesn't, then hopefully at least the blast radius can be well-contained.

There are corporations which have learned to behave more thoughtfully and in harmony with OSS, who made a point to be aware of their community footprint, and sure plenty of such individuals too. Those who are not well-behaved can either hopefully see the light, or maybe there's no hope remaining, they will totally take over, and complete the tragedy of the commons. I submit humbly that we should not degrade the commons though as a response to their influence, because even with the bad actors around and their bad behavior, the facts show that our innate understanding of reciprocity is mostly still a beneficial trait, worthy of keeping around.

RubyConf 2017: Keynote - You're Insufficiently Persuasive by Sandi Metz - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

His books weaponize common psychological traits and teach how to use them to achieve one’s means. An extremely toxic approach in my opinion.

I really enjoyed Sandi Metz’ talk on this very topic, in which she addresses the books and offers alternative approaches to creating influence through leadership and solid relationships.

It’s a talk I’d recommend for the whole team to watch, together.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

I’d type out an answer but I just saw Sandi Metz’ amazing talk on influence in the context of software teams.

Highly recommended.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VzWLGMtXflg

As for the rest, I’d take a step back and check if it is possible that the “old, unmotivated, change-resisting” could be possibly judgments (hint: they are) and what did they result from.

Example: I requested that we make changes X, Y and Z, and Peter refused on the premise that ... (to replace “change-resistant”)

Also, Peter is 45. (To replace “Old”)

Working with judgments is difficult because they close the possibility for dialogue. Working with observations opens possibilities for inquiry.

Also, even programmers can feel when they’re being judged, so there’s that.