111–120 of 476 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m kind of in awe by the unprofessionalism of this response. In an era of incessant corporate PR, it’s somewhat refreshing lol.
Chastising devs who address issues directly is a great way to make sure canned PR responses is all we get.
Another day, another Casey post dunking on my team. Hi! This tweet misses the mark only a little bit; in a previous blog post, we apologized[1] pretty frankly to everyone involved in this discussion. I'll admit that we didn't list him by name, but neither did we list the other handful of folks involved. We should have. In turn, Casey rightly did not acknowledge it except to tell his followers that it was not a real a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Careful, that's starting to sound like an example of a downside to remote work, which is a touchy topic these days...
That's a downside of exclusive reliance on written communication, not of remote work. You can avoid this with a phone call or a "can we pair for a bit?" session as well.
Another day, another Casey post dunking on my team. Hi! This tweet misses the mark only a little bit; in a previous blog post, we apologized[1] pretty frankly to everyone involved in this discussion. I'll admit that we didn't list him by name, but neither did we list the other handful of folks involved. We should have. In turn, Casey rightly did not acknowledge it except to tell his followers that it was not a real a…
It's so ironic that people are criticizing this comment and the linked apology for their language but fail to see that the original issue was caused by Casey's language and not the actual technical details.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> except to note that it was not an apology at all. Ctrl-F there doesn't show a single "sorry" in the text. Or "Casey" for that matter. Why is it so difficult to say: "Casey, we are sorry, you were right and we were mistaken.". Instead there is a nebulous ~extended a branch to community and hope to accept our apology~ (paraphrasing) without offering an apology in the first place.
we hope that you will accept our apology and understand we’re humans behind this product with a capability and willingness to learn from our past mistakes. Seems pretty sincere and decent to me.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also probably would not have responded favorably to that wording – irrespective of if they were correct. Why not? I see nothing wrong with this sort of feedback. It's blunt, but constructive.
If it was your code they were talking about, you may feel differently. Blunt, hyperbolic statements like "massively overcomplicated" can feel like a shot across the bow when someone is talking about code you wrote. Kindness and gentleness go a long way in OSS.
If you do anything out in public, you either develop a bit thicker skin or have a bad time. Frankly, if this bothers you at all that is indicative of a very fragile ego and not anyone's problem but yours. The rest of the world doesn't exist to coddle you and this cultural shift folks sometimes try to propose into that exact behaviour is unhealthy. We're adults, not children.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I also probably would not have responded favorably to that wording – irrespective of if they were correct. Why not? I see nothing wrong with this sort of feedback. It's blunt, but constructive.
If it was your code they were talking about, you may feel differently. Blunt, hyperbolic statements like "massively overcomplicated" can feel like a shot across the bow when someone is talking about code you wrote. Kindness and gentleness go a long way in OSS.
> If it was your code they were talking about, you may feel differently.
I'm not the commenter you replied to, but no, I'm not my code, so I'm not going to get offended by someone criticising it. If someone does, it's on them.
There were a number of times in my career when someone called something I wrote overcomplicated, and I've never been even close to feeling any emotion about that fact at all. That remark always prompted me to hear carefully what they have to say about improving it. That's not a brag, just a certain level of emotional maturity.
People shouldn't be held responsible for every emotional reaction people have to their actions/words, because part of the responsibility for that rests on the person experiencing those emotions. In that case I don't think Casey said anything offensive, so if that made someone angry, they have themselves to blame for that.
Another day, another Casey post dunking on my team. Hi! This tweet misses the mark only a little bit; in a previous blog post, we apologized[1] pretty frankly to everyone involved in this discussion. I'll admit that we didn't list him by name, but neither did we list the other handful of folks involved. We should have. In turn, Casey rightly did not acknowledge it except to tell his followers that it was not a real a…
> I just don't know what else he's asking for here. Credit? Us to die screaming? ... We get it, Microsoft sucks, we should all be fired, rah rah rah. Someone is upset and venting. This comment comes across to me as "Ugh we already said the right words. Their distress is so inconvenient to me, why isn't it stopping?" EDIT: Typically in this community we denote when a comment has been edited to change a critical piece…
I don't get where the big issue is, a guy smugly makes a suggestion, the devs argue with it and point out that his tone isn't helping. The guy turns out to be right, the devs implement his suggestion. They don't have a history of thanking people by name so they make a vague attribution. Guy continues to be hostile against them, dev calls him out and now he's the asshole? Come on.
Seems like a misleading title to me.
Yeah, maybe there's more context I'm missing but the screenshotted comments don't seem particularly "insulting", and the blog post announcing that they're implementing the idea does credit Casey (just not by name). I'd summarize this more as "Microsoft employees initially disagree with dev's idea, but eventually admit he was right."