Principles of Technology Leadership | Bryan Cantrill | Monktoberfest 2017

Misdirected, not over the top, it's very appropriate especially when it was a sponsored project and they were getting called out as if Ben was their employee and they were cosigning whatever Ben's views were. Regardless how you feel on gendered pronouns, if you're writing documentation regarding all users it seems like a no brainier to actually involve all users in the language, something which Bryan puts great significance into. Bryan's talks[0] usually involve tone and messaging (as well as being triggered and raged) as key points. But back to the drama issue. The problem about this whole thing isn't about the pronouns really, it was the actions that Ben took even after it was explained and the hard stance Joyent felt it needed to take on the issue in the aftermath. Ben, if we're giving him the benefit of the doubt (because he isn't a native English speaker) to word something 'wrong', is a simple fix, who cares. - The real part of this whole mess was because he tried reversing a commit that was made by the project lead after it was worded to include more users. Ben was the main agitator in this almost 6 year old mess regardless of his amount of contributions. [0] this video

For whatever it's worth, the only (real) difference between the blog entry and the op-ed that Business Insider asked to run is this closing paragraph that I added at their suggestion: Some of the specifics of our model may or may not be a fit — we appreciate that uniform compensation is an unusual luxury, and we know that transparency of compensation can be a painful change to effect in an organization that has no history of it (or worse, has secretly been rewarding similar work vastly inequitably). But we do believe — fervently — that compensation reflects a company's values, and that it's absolutely essential that companies elucidate those values. If your company has no formal values, there's a tremendous opportunity to define them. This opportunity is not without peril, however, as my Monktoberfest 2017 talk on "Principles of Technology Leadership"[0] describes: Mistaken or crooked organizational values can be more damaging than absent or implicit ones. Don't define your values in terms of aspirations, aphorisms, slogans, or (because it apparently has to be said!) memes. Rather, they should be an honest expression of the shared values that bind the organization. Once your true values are elucidated, reevaluate your compensation in light of them. This isn't easy to do (especially because it will be a foregone conclusion that any reexamination will not result in the reduction of anyone's compensation), but your employees — current and future — will thank you for it. [0] [VID

Tim O'Reilly's blog post (before this announcement, which likely comes on back of Bezos' final annual letter to shareholders [0]) contrasting Ingram's and Amazon's approach towards the marketplaces they operate in sheds light on why the inclusion of these principles is substantial [1]. Leadership principles, though in tension with each other (and so, some argue they really shouldn't be classified as "principles" but rather "values" [2]), permeates the culture of performance and team building at Amazon; and that makes me think this is not only a welcome but potentially a company-defining change. [0] link [1] link [2] this video

The problem is that they are bromides and claptrap, not principles. There is an important distinction to be made here between principles and values, which they are not making in part because Amazon themselves do not understand the difference.[0] Having a community define its values is important[1], but this is emphatically not the way to do it -- and these are not it besides. [0] this video [1] link

I think I would point you instead to my beliefs about principles[0], values[1], and (because you are young), the promise and peril of youth[2]. [0] this video [1] link [2] link

I am glad to see that many people are being correcting you, but just to put a sharp point on it: I am using that metaphor to condemn Ellison, not to condone or accept him. Unfortunately, since that talk in 2011, what was an aberration (albeit a broadly unspoken one) has since -- tragically -- become the norm. I refuse to accept this, however: I will continue to speak my truth about the moral decay in tech, and why we must hold ourselves to a higher standard.[0][1][2][3][4] And I obviously agree with your indignation that poor corporate behavior should not be the status quo! [0] Principles of Technology Leadership , this video (2017) [1] Andreessen's Corollary: Ethical Dilemmas in Software Engineering , link (2019) [2] (Anti-)application Video for YC120 , link (2019) [3] Coming Of Age , link (2022) [4] Intelligence is not Enough , link (2023)