not to mention that the difference in money can be life-changing. it is not uncommon to see a 2-3x total comp. multiple as a "level 3" at the referenced companies compared to a small one.
That's correct. Clearly the worth of the advice would be different for different people, depending upon how deep their pockets are. I was hoping to get some examples of just what kind of advice was offered.
I recently joined the team at Chameleon. Here's why I wanted to be a part of their story:
1. I used to be a customer and loved the product!
2. As an earlier adopter of Chameleon, I saw the problem the technology is solving and we were delighted with the impact it had on not only immediately having high quality, customized, observable product tours and onboarding experiences but allowing developers to stay focused on shipping product!
3. Pulkit, Brian, and the rest of the team are razor sharp and focused on making a difference for their customers.
I believe there is a bright future at Chameleon and this is an exciting time to get involved.
It may just be my company, but over three engineering managers on three different teams, none have had a technical background enough to do any of the "line-functions" you refer-to to occasionally demonstrate technical expertise. There is a dynamic that has not been discussed that I think is important: Engineering Managers rarely have the experience or skillset of Senior IC's and it isn't about faded technical chops they once had. I disagree with the simplicity of the author's framing of an Engineering Manager "letting someone else do the execution". This can be toxic when the Engineering Manager presents this type of delegation to the rest of the organization and a Senior IC report is left undervalued and misrepresented.
I listened to Matt's talk, and I was one of the break-out speakers at RedisConf 2015.
I think people (and possibly Salvatore) are over-reacting slightly when claiming Matt wants to take over the project. What I got out of the talk was an explanation of Redis's development cycle (warts and all) wrapped in a lot of satire. I gave Matt the benefit of the doubt that there was no truly ill will towards Salvatore or Redis.
Thanks for your comment, it is good to have a different POV.
I tried to state exactly what happened, "funny" or not, he was very serious and addressed the same concerns in the mailing list in the past. Moreover after showing things he did not liked, the "funny animation" he showed said every time "this is unacceptable". He cherry picked from IRC, Twitter (misquoting me big time, I told him after the talk that he misquoted me), and Github issues in a wrong way. It's like me doing a talk with every PR he submitted where there were gross oversights, picking all the source code, and his comments or alike. Moreover at the end he clearly claimed for succession, showing a few examples of succession like Graham -> Altman. To be "funny" is a very subtle way to provide very hard content, but what matters is the meaning. That you put funny sounds and animated GIFs IMHO does not change the net result.
EDIT: Probably the most unfair things was "Sometimes for Salvatore Redis looks like hobby++", or he quoted me when I said on IRC that to run an OSS project does not mean you have an obligation with the world (without adding any context of course, as usually), but he said, oh sure, you have, there are many people running Redis out there. Everybody following Redis closely knows the efforts I do in order to make sure the server is stable and to fix problems people have. So this guy arrives 6 months ago after I work for 6 years in a row very hard, and tells me I've just a random hobby. Seriously, I tried just to state the facts in the blog post without even recounting what I'm saying now just to show my point.
Hey Salvatore. The argument could be made that he said some unfair or inappropriate things for sure--I was more speaking to the folks on this thread calling him a "complete douchebag" and other pretty derogatory things without seeing the talk for themselves. Cheers.
Another speaker from the event here, and totally in agreement w. hashset.
I've attended that session and have had the pleasure of being exposed to Matt's views in other occasions (IRL and online :)). While I don't necessarily agree with everything Matt says, his perspective is unique - he's the only 0.5 core Redis developer in the world and his contributions to the project are mostly inspiring and certainly of quality. From what I've seen, he's devoted to Redis as much as anyone can be and takes the project very (too?) personally.
Matt's presentation skills are also kinda unique - he uses at least 2^32 slides in every talk, and these are mostly filled with cartoons/memes that I'm too old to recognize mixed with geeky jokes that he makes up by himself ("What is the favorite food of villains? configs." - brilliant!) (remember that even making up a bad joke takes considerable talent.)
However, between the puns and laughs, his talk is honest and his messages are clear. He usually (I missed the first 2m of this session [i.e. first 200 slides] but I'm guessing he did it this time as well) opens with an apology for his upcoming rants. Then he delivers sharp criticism at what he perceives to be faults based on his 1st-hand experience. Instead of accepting the "facts", he challenges them and tries suggesting creative approaches to solving these problems.
Yes, he could be a better politician but maybe he doesn't want that (anymore?) - it seems that he wants to make the (Redis) world a better place by acting. He uses shock to deliver his points, and perhaps that's excessive at times, but I give him the credit because he tries practicing what he preaches. Matt has his reasons for choosing this rhetorical style - maybe he'll change it after this experience (although mostly likely he won't) - and quoting out of context is often ill-perceived even when well-intended, but when you listen to what he says rather than the how, he certainly shines a hard and clear light on some uncomfortable facts. Perhaps these [facts] are immutable, perhaps they can be tweaked and optimized for joy - I can't claim I know any better... but he definitely stirs things up and ignites thought-provoking discussions... and perhaps that's all that's needed.
I don't think Salvatore should or can be "replaced" by Matt, or by anyone else for that matter, until if and when Salvatore decides so. I don't believe that anyone with an IQ above 42 seriously thinks that Salvatore hasn't been or isn't committed to Redis. I didn't interpret Matt's talk as a coup attempt but rather as the continuation to previous discussions about scaling Redis' development. I can't imagine Matt was thinking that he'll be overthrowing the Benevolent Dictator during Redis Conf's last session - my impression of the talk was that in his own Matt-ish way, Matt was trying to shock everyone, and specifically antirez, into action to better things. It is the maintainer's right and obligation to choose between merging, cherry-picking from or even entirely rejecting Matt's orally-submitted PR, but I really don't see that PR meant as a personal attack. My 2c.
for me actually the problem is totally a different one, that Matt’s rants have a lot of slides and jokes but no clear arguments or no arguments I recognize as valid. I’ll show point by point his arguments and why they are IMHO flawed.
The thing is, between jokes and memes, and putting some random argument that “looks” have some merits inside, it is easy to fake a sensation of “real content” that is not there.
Examples of his points and why I believe they are wrong.
1. Redis is too complex and has too many components and protocols.
The programming community begs to differer. Redis is an example of a non trivial system software that a single individual can understand and modify easily. Matt points as "thins to parse" to CSV fields with a space inside, and as a "yet another protocol" to the cluster bus that uses a C structure sent over the wire, for which using the normal Redis client protocol would be extremely suboptimal.
2. We have obligations towards Redis users but for Salvatore Redis is hobby++.
Actually his vision about merging stuff liberally is exactly the irresponsible practice that should be avoided. Not only he does not spend time to improve the basis and doing serious code reviews to other peoples code (or if he does, it does not show up), but also often his own code is written in an informal way without understanding the cascading side effects he could have. Yet he focuses on adding things to Redis, not checking what the bugs could be. There are other people contributing in a different way. For example Sun He fixed a number of issues in Matt's quicklist code just reading the code as soon as the code was posted. To be responsible is to write sane code, and especially, instead of writing just new code, focusing a lot into fixing existing code. Another thing that is for me extremely odd is fixing things with a commit that happens to work, and commenting that it apparently works but the reasons are not clear and hand waving about a "possible" cause. For me this is not system programming.
3. Focusing for 5 minutes on the README -> README.md switch is just not having points.
4. Delay of Redis Cluster.
Even if this was addressed many times with: we had a not good enough single-node story to focus on Cluster so this was delayed many times is apparently not enough. It is clear and obvious, so citing this again and again is just an attempt to find an argument to attack.
(there is more but useless to continue -- it is clear it's a very different POV)
So what to do to improve Redis? To do the actual work that is hard to do, reviews, fixes, small incremental improvements, submitting code that is designed well in the first instance, and so forth. Shocking talks are just a useless display of memes.
Your arguments are exactly what I had wished for - your POV is just as crucial and my only regret is that we didn't "demand" that you go on stage then and there to present it - I would have certainly stayed for that and the ensuing discussion no matter how long it would have lasted after closing time (although, in second thought, that would have been extremely unfair as you would have been pushed into a tight spot w/o preparation, so I take that back). I could offer my views on each of the points but that's hardly relevant IMO, useless :)
What really pains me is seeing you two beautiful and smart individuals, who are passionate about the same thing, disagreeing so heatedly over these issues. I think (hope?) I can see where each one of you is coming from and to me it doesn't look like your goals are that different. Perhaps the nature of an open source community is such that such topics needs to be vented out in public - /me don't know. I sincerely hope that the core team will find a way to overcome these differences because despite of (or maybe because of) them, from a bystander's POV, it looks to me like you have a good thing going - together and backed by an amazing community.
> I think (hope?) I can see where each one of you is coming from and to me it doesn't look like your goals are that different
Sorry I disagree. I had already some issue with Matt's behavior, and Matt is not the project leader, yet in my talk I praised him two times, because this kind of things put the foundation to work together better.
Instead he provided a talk that goes exactly in the other direction. This human interaction issue made me reflecting about the other issues I had with Matt in the past months, for me it is GAME OVER. I'll continue to merge his PRs only after stringent reviews / testing, and that's it.
I believe that Phil Galfond was one of the first "new-generation" players to explain the strategy with modern media (youtube, podcasts) in a way that it could be taken and applied in your own game without too much hassle.
Harrington had explained the concept of evaluating tournament situations based on a range (although he didn't necessarily call it a range) in his Harrington on Hold 'Em books.
Galfond's gbucks article, maybe not the first mention of it, brought the concept of equity against a range into the mainstream.
