Documentation/ManagementStyle: convert it to ReST markup
- Convert document name to ReST; - Convert footnotes; - Convert sections to ReST format; - Don't use _foo_, as Sphinx doesn't support underline. Instead, use bold; - While here, remove whitespaces at the end of lines. Signed-off-by: Mauro Carvalho Chehab <mchehab@s-opensource.com> Signed-off-by: Jonathan Corbet <corbet@lwn.net>
This commit is contained in:
parent
3772ec4adf
commit
7f2b3c65b9
|
@ -1,10 +1,10 @@
|
|||
|
||||
Linux kernel management style
|
||||
Linux kernel management style
|
||||
=============================
|
||||
|
||||
This is a short document describing the preferred (or made up, depending
|
||||
on who you ask) management style for the linux kernel. It's meant to
|
||||
mirror the CodingStyle document to some degree, and mainly written to
|
||||
avoid answering (*) the same (or similar) questions over and over again.
|
||||
avoid answering [#f1]_ the same (or similar) questions over and over again.
|
||||
|
||||
Management style is very personal and much harder to quantify than
|
||||
simple coding style rules, so this document may or may not have anything
|
||||
|
@ -20,21 +20,23 @@ These suggestions may or may not apply to you.
|
|||
First off, I'd suggest buying "Seven Habits of Highly Effective
|
||||
People", and NOT read it. Burn it, it's a great symbolic gesture.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) This document does so not so much by answering the question, but by
|
||||
making it painfully obvious to the questioner that we don't have a clue
|
||||
to what the answer is.
|
||||
.. [#f1] This document does so not so much by answering the question, but by
|
||||
making it painfully obvious to the questioner that we don't have a clue
|
||||
to what the answer is.
|
||||
|
||||
Anyway, here goes:
|
||||
|
||||
.. _decisions:
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 1: Decisions
|
||||
1) Decisions
|
||||
------------
|
||||
|
||||
Everybody thinks managers make decisions, and that decision-making is
|
||||
important. The bigger and more painful the decision, the bigger the
|
||||
manager must be to make it. That's very deep and obvious, but it's not
|
||||
actually true.
|
||||
|
||||
The name of the game is to _avoid_ having to make a decision. In
|
||||
The name of the game is to **avoid** having to make a decision. In
|
||||
particular, if somebody tells you "choose (a) or (b), we really need you
|
||||
to decide on this", you're in trouble as a manager. The people you
|
||||
manage had better know the details better than you, so if they come to
|
||||
|
@ -43,10 +45,10 @@ competent to make that decision for them.
|
|||
|
||||
(Corollary:if the people you manage don't know the details better than
|
||||
you, you're also screwed, although for a totally different reason.
|
||||
Namely that you are in the wrong job, and that _they_ should be managing
|
||||
Namely that you are in the wrong job, and that **they** should be managing
|
||||
your brilliance instead).
|
||||
|
||||
So the name of the game is to _avoid_ decisions, at least the big and
|
||||
So the name of the game is to **avoid** decisions, at least the big and
|
||||
painful ones. Making small and non-consequential decisions is fine, and
|
||||
makes you look like you know what you're doing, so what a kernel manager
|
||||
needs to do is to turn the big and painful ones into small things where
|
||||
|
@ -55,9 +57,9 @@ nobody really cares.
|
|||
It helps to realize that the key difference between a big decision and a
|
||||
small one is whether you can fix your decision afterwards. Any decision
|
||||
can be made small by just always making sure that if you were wrong (and
|
||||
you _will_ be wrong), you can always undo the damage later by
|
||||
you **will** be wrong), you can always undo the damage later by
|
||||
backtracking. Suddenly, you get to be doubly managerial for making
|
||||
_two_ inconsequential decisions - the wrong one _and_ the right one.
|
||||
**two** inconsequential decisions - the wrong one **and** the right one.
|
||||
|
||||
And people will even see that as true leadership (*cough* bullshit
|
||||
*cough*).
|
||||
|
@ -68,7 +70,7 @@ you cannot escape. A cornered rat may be dangerous - a cornered manager
|
|||
is just pitiful.
|
||||
|
||||
It turns out that since nobody would be stupid enough to ever really let
|
||||
a kernel manager have huge fiscal responsibility _anyway_, it's usually
|
||||
a kernel manager have huge fiscal responsibility **anyway**, it's usually
|
||||
fairly easy to backtrack. Since you're not going to be able to waste
|
||||
huge amounts of money that you might not be able to repay, the only
|
||||
thing you can backtrack on is a technical decision, and there
|
||||
|
@ -80,12 +82,13 @@ easily undone.
|
|||
|
||||
It turns out that some people have trouble with this approach, for two
|
||||
reasons:
|
||||
|
||||
- admitting you were an idiot is harder than it looks. We all like to
|
||||
maintain appearances, and coming out in public to say that you were
|
||||
wrong is sometimes very hard indeed.
|
||||
- having somebody tell you that what you worked on for the last year
|
||||
wasn't worthwhile after all can be hard on the poor lowly engineers
|
||||
too, and while the actual _work_ was easy enough to undo by just
|
||||
too, and while the actual **work** was easy enough to undo by just
|
||||
deleting it, you may have irrevocably lost the trust of that
|
||||
engineer. And remember: "irrevocable" was what we tried to avoid in
|
||||
the first place, and your decision ended up being a big one after
|
||||
|
@ -95,8 +98,8 @@ Happily, both of these reasons can be mitigated effectively by just
|
|||
admitting up-front that you don't have a friggin' clue, and telling
|
||||
people ahead of the fact that your decision is purely preliminary, and
|
||||
might be the wrong thing. You should always reserve the right to change
|
||||
your mind, and make people very _aware_ of that. And it's much easier
|
||||
to admit that you are stupid when you haven't _yet_ done the really
|
||||
your mind, and make people very **aware** of that. And it's much easier
|
||||
to admit that you are stupid when you haven't **yet** done the really
|
||||
stupid thing.
|
||||
|
||||
Then, when it really does turn out to be stupid, people just roll their
|
||||
|
@ -104,7 +107,7 @@ eyes and say "Oops, he did it again".
|
|||
|
||||
This preemptive admission of incompetence might also make the people who
|
||||
actually do the work also think twice about whether it's worth doing or
|
||||
not. After all, if _they_ aren't certain whether it's a good idea, you
|
||||
not. After all, if **they** aren't certain whether it's a good idea, you
|
||||
sure as hell shouldn't encourage them by promising them that what they
|
||||
work on will be included. Make them at least think twice before they
|
||||
embark on a big endeavor.
|
||||
|
@ -127,11 +130,12 @@ smelling like roses, and you avoided yet another decision that you could
|
|||
have screwed up on.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 2: People
|
||||
2) People
|
||||
---------
|
||||
|
||||
Most people are idiots, and being a manager means you'll have to deal
|
||||
with it, and perhaps more importantly, that _they_ have to deal with
|
||||
_you_.
|
||||
with it, and perhaps more importantly, that **they** have to deal with
|
||||
**you**.
|
||||
|
||||
It turns out that while it's easy to undo technical mistakes, it's not
|
||||
as easy to undo personality disorders. You just have to live with
|
||||
|
@ -142,22 +146,24 @@ remember not to burn any bridges, bomb any innocent villagers, or
|
|||
alienate too many kernel developers. It turns out that alienating people
|
||||
is fairly easy, and un-alienating them is hard. Thus "alienating"
|
||||
immediately falls under the heading of "not reversible", and becomes a
|
||||
no-no according to Chapter 1.
|
||||
no-no according to :ref:`decisions`.
|
||||
|
||||
There's just a few simple rules here:
|
||||
|
||||
(1) don't call people d*ckheads (at least not in public)
|
||||
(2) learn how to apologize when you forgot rule (1)
|
||||
|
||||
The problem with #1 is that it's very easy to do, since you can say
|
||||
"you're a d*ckhead" in millions of different ways (*), sometimes without
|
||||
"you're a d*ckhead" in millions of different ways [#f2]_, sometimes without
|
||||
even realizing it, and almost always with a white-hot conviction that
|
||||
you are right.
|
||||
|
||||
And the more convinced you are that you are right (and let's face it,
|
||||
you can call just about _anybody_ a d*ckhead, and you often _will_ be
|
||||
you can call just about **anybody** a d*ckhead, and you often **will** be
|
||||
right), the harder it ends up being to apologize afterwards.
|
||||
|
||||
To solve this problem, you really only have two options:
|
||||
|
||||
- get really good at apologies
|
||||
- spread the "love" out so evenly that nobody really ends up feeling
|
||||
like they get unfairly targeted. Make it inventive enough, and they
|
||||
|
@ -166,12 +172,13 @@ To solve this problem, you really only have two options:
|
|||
The option of being unfailingly polite really doesn't exist. Nobody will
|
||||
trust somebody who is so clearly hiding his true character.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Paul Simon sang "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover", because quite
|
||||
frankly, "A Million Ways to Tell a Developer He Is a D*ckhead" doesn't
|
||||
scan nearly as well. But I'm sure he thought about it.
|
||||
.. [#f2] Paul Simon sang "Fifty Ways to Leave Your Lover", because quite
|
||||
frankly, "A Million Ways to Tell a Developer He Is a D*ckhead" doesn't
|
||||
scan nearly as well. But I'm sure he thought about it.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 3: People II - the Good Kind
|
||||
3) People II - the Good Kind
|
||||
----------------------------
|
||||
|
||||
While it turns out that most people are idiots, the corollary to that is
|
||||
sadly that you are one too, and that while we can all bask in the secure
|
||||
|
@ -191,7 +198,7 @@ So when you find somebody smarter than you are, just coast along. Your
|
|||
management responsibilities largely become ones of saying "Sounds like a
|
||||
good idea - go wild", or "That sounds good, but what about xxx?". The
|
||||
second version in particular is a great way to either learn something
|
||||
new about "xxx" or seem _extra_ managerial by pointing out something the
|
||||
new about "xxx" or seem **extra** managerial by pointing out something the
|
||||
smarter person hadn't thought about. In either case, you win.
|
||||
|
||||
One thing to look out for is to realize that greatness in one area does
|
||||
|
@ -199,23 +206,24 @@ not necessarily translate to other areas. So you might prod people in
|
|||
specific directions, but let's face it, they might be good at what they
|
||||
do, and suck at everything else. The good news is that people tend to
|
||||
naturally gravitate back to what they are good at, so it's not like you
|
||||
are doing something irreversible when you _do_ prod them in some
|
||||
are doing something irreversible when you **do** prod them in some
|
||||
direction, just don't push too hard.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 4: Placing blame
|
||||
4) Placing blame
|
||||
----------------
|
||||
|
||||
Things will go wrong, and people want somebody to blame. Tag, you're it.
|
||||
|
||||
It's not actually that hard to accept the blame, especially if people
|
||||
kind of realize that it wasn't _all_ your fault. Which brings us to the
|
||||
kind of realize that it wasn't **all** your fault. Which brings us to the
|
||||
best way of taking the blame: do it for another guy. You'll feel good
|
||||
for taking the fall, he'll feel good about not getting blamed, and the
|
||||
guy who lost his whole 36GB porn-collection because of your incompetence
|
||||
will grudgingly admit that you at least didn't try to weasel out of it.
|
||||
|
||||
Then make the developer who really screwed up (if you can find him) know
|
||||
_in_private_ that he screwed up. Not just so he can avoid it in the
|
||||
**in_private** that he screwed up. Not just so he can avoid it in the
|
||||
future, but so that he knows he owes you one. And, perhaps even more
|
||||
importantly, he's also likely the person who can fix it. Because, let's
|
||||
face it, it sure ain't you.
|
||||
|
@ -227,7 +235,8 @@ you've followed the previous rules, you'll be pretty good at saying that
|
|||
by now.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 5: Things to avoid
|
||||
5) Things to avoid
|
||||
------------------
|
||||
|
||||
There's one thing people hate even more than being called "d*ckhead",
|
||||
and that is being called a "d*ckhead" in a sanctimonious voice. The
|
||||
|
@ -236,10 +245,10 @@ chance. They likely will no longer be listening even if you otherwise
|
|||
do a good job.
|
||||
|
||||
We all think we're better than anybody else, which means that when
|
||||
somebody else puts on airs, it _really_ rubs us the wrong way. You may
|
||||
somebody else puts on airs, it **really** rubs us the wrong way. You may
|
||||
be morally and intellectually superior to everybody around you, but
|
||||
don't try to make it too obvious unless you really _intend_ to irritate
|
||||
somebody (*).
|
||||
don't try to make it too obvious unless you really **intend** to irritate
|
||||
somebody [#f3]_.
|
||||
|
||||
Similarly, don't be too polite or subtle about things. Politeness easily
|
||||
ends up going overboard and hiding the problem, and as they say, "On the
|
||||
|
@ -253,13 +262,14 @@ without making it painful to the recipient, who just thinks you're being
|
|||
silly. It can thus help get through the personal mental block we all
|
||||
have about criticism.
|
||||
|
||||
(*) Hint: internet newsgroups that are not directly related to your work
|
||||
are great ways to take out your frustrations at other people. Write
|
||||
insulting posts with a sneer just to get into a good flame every once in
|
||||
a while, and you'll feel cleansed. Just don't crap too close to home.
|
||||
.. [#f3] Hint: internet newsgroups that are not directly related to your work
|
||||
are great ways to take out your frustrations at other people. Write
|
||||
insulting posts with a sneer just to get into a good flame every once in
|
||||
a while, and you'll feel cleansed. Just don't crap too close to home.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Chapter 6: Why me?
|
||||
6) Why me?
|
||||
----------
|
||||
|
||||
Since your main responsibility seems to be to take the blame for other
|
||||
peoples mistakes, and make it painfully obvious to everybody else that
|
||||
|
@ -268,7 +278,7 @@ first place?
|
|||
|
||||
First off, while you may or may not get screaming teenage girls (or
|
||||
boys, let's not be judgmental or sexist here) knocking on your dressing
|
||||
room door, you _will_ get an immense feeling of personal accomplishment
|
||||
room door, you **will** get an immense feeling of personal accomplishment
|
||||
for being "in charge". Never mind the fact that you're really leading
|
||||
by trying to keep up with everybody else and running after them as fast
|
||||
as you can. Everybody will still think you're the person in charge.
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue