> It [the rewrite] has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous.
Yet, I found the rewrite to be feeble and ambivalent.
> If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse?
Yes.
I wanted to add one additional question. Are there environments where ad hominem and disrespect are actually important cultivators of competency and reverence for the nature of the underlying task. Might there be instances where the collective is better off with Mr. Torvalds than Mr. Rogers?
I took note of the “Mr torvalds or Mr Rogers” example. It was clever and I think the truth underlying it is that for an idea to survive its circumstances, it must be shepherded by certain kinds of personalities.
I'll add, you accurately used the word shepherded and I thought, "I imagine there are times when sheep aren't too pleased to be handled by a crook". Maybe the Kernel Mailing List is Linus's crook...
> It [the rewrite] has 43% as many words, but loses none of the meaning. It's still forceful and unambiguous.
Yet, I found the rewrite to be feeble and ambivalent.
> If you were in the "I'm afraid that being nicer would hurt Linux" group, do you think that this email is worse? Yes.
I wanted to add one additional question. Are there environments where ad hominem and disrespect are actually important cultivators of competency and reverence for the nature of the underlying task. Might there be instances where the collective is better off with Mr. Torvalds than Mr. Rogers?