The Disinvitation(blog.cleancoder.com)
blog.cleancoder.com
The Disinvitation
http://blog.cleancoder.com/uncle-bob/2020/09/12/TheDisinvitation.html
81 コメント
I've never quite understood why Robert Martin carries so much currency in the software development world. That whole portion of industry group-think -- what to call it? consulting-revenue-oriented-dev-culture? you know, the agile/xp/enterprise software/oop-cum-fp-design-pattern "flavor of the month while pretending to be profound" thing -- had noble intentions but feels like a huge left turn in retrospect. Fortunately that crowd is taken less and less seriously as software progresses toward something more reminiscent of traditional engineering; the next generation of the sort seems to be piling into the "data science" world.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
Given his views on software-related things, it's not particularly surprising to me that his approach toward a dis-invitation is... provocative, designed to go viral by tapping into certain aspects of a certain subset of dev culture, and not particularly well thought out.
Clean Code filled niche about programming in the large, & yes, overall we had a huge thought-leader driven worldview of computing & development.
Verbal agreements still count as contracts in some jurisdictions and having your schedule booked on a certain date means you're missing out on paying opportunities. I assume you're employed otherwise you wouldn't spout nonsense like that.
There is no contract, verbal or otherwise, because there was no consideration -- Martin would not have received anything in exchange for giving his presentation. (Intangible benefits like "exposure" don't count as consideration for the purposes of contract law.) The conference never had any obligations to him, and consequently he has not lost anything by no longer being engaged to speak.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
Even if there had been a speaking fee, the conference could have fulfilled their end of the contract by paying him but not having him speak. There is no scenario under which the conference would have been forced to allow him to give a presentation.
And conversely, if he had backed out last minute for personal reasons, it would have sucked for the conference, but they wouldn't have been able to go after him for damages.
"Had we agreed on a speaking free"
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
The many spelling mistakes in this post lead me to believe that he was very, very angry when typing this up. I'd not be surprised if it was deleted by Monday.
There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit! This is all about getting exposure and perhaps channeling wallets towards his Patreon (or SubscribeStar, or whatever platform is en vogue with the bob martins right now).
> There won't be a lawsuit. There was never intended to be a lawsuit. There are no grounds for a lawsuit!
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
Of course not. But that isn't my point.
My concern isn't that he would actually file a lawsuit -- that's a non-starter. My concern is that his reaction to being snubbed is to publicly threaten the conference organizers, and the other speakers at the conference. That sort of behavior suggests a hostile, combative attitude that likely goes beyond this incident. That is the bullet I'm suggesting that the conference may have dodged.
[deleted]
[deleted]
> The conference organizers are in breech of contract
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.
“Breach”, and probably not. While Martin acknowledges there was no written agreement, he provides little reason to believe that whatever communication they had met the requirements for a contract.
He does provide, in arguing for breach of contract where he is the aggrieved party, a much better (but still far from complete) argument for fraud where attendees were the aggrieved party.
In addition to an actual contract, breach would depend on something he strongly implies did not occur, to wit, an actual disinvitation by the organizers. It's clear that his contact wanted Martin to voluntarily back out based on the conflict created by the threatened boycott by other speakers, and Martin seems to describe himself agreeing to do so to make things easy for his contact. That's a change by mutual agreement, not a breach.
> The speakers who refused to speak if I spoke are guilty of tortious interference.
Assuming the required relationship (which may be disputable), Martin seems to establish interference, but not the independently wrongful action that would make it tortious.
Also, this is cute:
> I promised him I would not mention his name or the name of the conference on line.
But then:
> So, this time, I’ll let the legal options rest. Instead, I’m offering a virtual free talk at 10:00 AM CDT, on September 21st, the first day of the conference.
So, you've pretty much guaranteed that the conference, and probably your contact since knowing the conference will make that not too hard for people to deduce, will be publicly identified online soon, even if not under your byline.
It was actually easy to identify the conference in question by searching for the author's name plus "Chicago" and "conference". DuckDuckGo's search summary shows him as a speaker, but the actual page does not. And the date of his own talk coincides with the first day of that conference.
I think he shouldn't have been dis-invited from the conference. But, on the other hand, I find Rob Martin overrated and very much like an snakeoil salesman, he needs to peddle something. He is very opinionated and his opinion changes too quickly to be useful, so he's not a person I really want to waste my time learning from. There are plenty of people out there who don't pretend to be gurus and yet what they teach is infinitely more useful.
What opinions has Bob Martin expressed that are objectionable?
From memory I think (please, someone correct me if I'm wrong) there were some articles about hiring on merit rather than promoting gender (and possibly race/culture) diversity as an ideal?
Isn't it tragic that that stands out as objectionable?
it's tragic that people think merit-based promotions and hiring actually exist. Meritocracy is flawed and extremely biased -- because people that enforce meritocracy are biased.
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
There are literally studies on this.
Martin himself shows himself to be a biased person which he shows time and time again on Twitter. What if he were to decide who got promoted or hired for companies?
There are literally studies on this.
Speaking as a minority myself, if hiring based on assessed merit is wrong, I don't want to be right.
Who isn't bias? That's what defines an individual personality. If we would remove everybody who expresses some biases you wouldn't have that much choice of people at the end.
The fact that people have bias cannot be the issue in itself, problems occur when they are ignored and not taken in account by systems.
For example a hiring process can take in account biases and have ways to correct for them, for example by avoiding to have one single interviewer having way more weight than another, by doing blind reviews, etc.
The fact that people have bias cannot be the issue in itself, problems occur when they are ignored and not taken in account by systems.
For example a hiring process can take in account biases and have ways to correct for them, for example by avoiding to have one single interviewer having way more weight than another, by doing blind reviews, etc.
so you're saying to avoid biases, we should have a diverse and inclusive set of interviewers that can counter each others' blind spots.
And that meritocracy on its own cannot work because everyone is biased in one way or another. Got it.
And that meritocracy on its own cannot work because everyone is biased in one way or another. Got it.
I don't say the part about meritocracy, I don't believe that's a jump that makes sense, but the rest is correct, yes :)
I see meritocracy as an ideal we would like to be able to tend to, not something that has been achieved in the past or current time.
I see meritocracy as an ideal we would like to be able to tend to, not something that has been achieved in the past or current time.
So what does exist? Oppression and power? And we should trust the people who believe that to fix the imbalances?
I'd like to invite you to come up with a strategy to counter meritocracy bias to make it "fair" for everyone. What would your strategy be?
Did you mean to reply to the parent?
No? maybe I misunderstood your comment. Everyone seems to default to "if it's not meritocracy, then what?" or they default to "this meritocracy alternative you're proposing is worse". Well, then, what's better for you? What would you prefer knowing that meritocracy is inherently full of biases?
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
Meritocracy is full of flaws.
I do believe putting more diverse set of people into power makes a difference. Having racial diversity, gender diversity, cultural diversity, financial diversity etc. is important for having fair and fruitful leadership at companies, in gov't, and whatever other places.
No, I guess I misunderstood yours.There is nothing better than meritocracy, in my view, because meritocracy, which I believe is routinely used successfully in all sorts of domains, ensures the best people are incentivized to do the best work they can, for the benefit of the entire tribe..
I guess that's where we disagree. I don't think it's been used successfully and by design, meritocracy isn't for the benefit of everyone -- it encourages actions only for the benefit of the power-wielders because they're the ones who judge merit.
https://twitter.com/unclebobmartin/status/128266896430954496...
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
I object to using the notion of a "6X difference in murderer density" among Black men as a reason why police are justified in racial profiling.
But I also object to the extremely smug and faux-engineer-rationality of "This does not appear to be racism [...] It looks more like math."
If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be just some guy on Twitter I would write him off as a simple fool. If we're expecting Uncle Bob to be a thought leader in a consequential professional field requiring deep analysis and sound judgement, that's something else.
calling out the left in the US for promoting a cancel culture. And telling people not to remain silent or embarassed about having views other than the left.
[deleted]
I wouldn’t have cancelled the contract, we’re not getting anywhere with purity tests. We can appreciate what George Washington & Thomas Jefferson did AND disapprove of their slaveholding. Life is ambiguous and messy.
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
The one rant I read indicates that he thinks the country was not founded on slavery and that Reconstruction was not thwarted, Jim Crow did not exist, federal redlining of Black neighborhoods until recently did not happen, and none of the people that I’ve hung out with who have chatted about f’ing up n*s actually exist. That’s an issue for another venue and I applaud his candor in stating it, sort of a flat-earther earnestness.
This is not a discussion looking back 250 years at someone. It's looking back on the behaviour of someone living 1 year ago. Or yesterday. Or today.
True... I can’t glean your point, though. Are we disagreeing somewhere, or are you amplifying/concurring? Am I missing something so egregious (a call to race war or similar) that he’s an incitement danger on the order of a Richard Spencer? I don’t even agree with him on every tech subject.
[deleted]
[deleted]
"Disinviting someone from a virtual conference who can draw a potentially large audience away from that virtual conference is not a particularly intelligent tactic."
I think Uncle Bob greatly overestimates his pull in the tech talks world.
I think Uncle Bob greatly overestimates his pull in the tech talks world.
And if not, certainly seems to value quantity over quality.
That's pre-apocalyptic thinking.
That's pre-apocalyptic thinking.
[deleted]
cancel culture is awful
There is an authoritarianism to it. There's almost never any trial, never any jury. We have these codes of conduct but there's no justice system around them, no paths to renewal or forgiveness.
Perhaps a write up with what the charges are, to start, is due.
Then the person can reply, appeal or try to say that they are trying to learn & prove & apologize.
We have had to tolerate & had to endure humongous shitbirds on this poor planet for way too long. People should be fed up, up to our ears with terrible behavior, & seemingly nothing to put a damper on it, endlessly ever the malignant poisonous people grabbing attention & stroking their demented egos in public. We do need a way for civil society to begin to emerge defenses, to say, no, you are not a civic participant here. But I also think the current CoC system is remarkably cruel & unjust, almost everywhere, & cause of undue unnecessary harm & division & schizming. (But not with BM).
Perhaps a write up with what the charges are, to start, is due.
Then the person can reply, appeal or try to say that they are trying to learn & prove & apologize.
We have had to tolerate & had to endure humongous shitbirds on this poor planet for way too long. People should be fed up, up to our ears with terrible behavior, & seemingly nothing to put a damper on it, endlessly ever the malignant poisonous people grabbing attention & stroking their demented egos in public. We do need a way for civil society to begin to emerge defenses, to say, no, you are not a civic participant here. But I also think the current CoC system is remarkably cruel & unjust, almost everywhere, & cause of undue unnecessary harm & division & schizming. (But not with BM).
Then create a separation between person and profession. That would limit the scope to the location of the offense.
zarkov99(2)
Terroristic response. Not doing it but basically the whole post is about how much might & shit he could reign down on those who dare ruin & cross him & the volunteer activities he was happy to do as a favor for a while.
Conference asks Martin to give a presentation. No money is to change hands, no contract is signed.
Conference changes their mind and decides to not have him speak after all.
Martin's reaction is to throw around legal threats like "breech of contract" [sic] and "tortious interference"???
Sounds to me like the conference dodged a bullet.