Every argument clarity score on this site is built from rows on this page. Each
question and answer was assessed with names hidden, the host's own answers included, on
four things from 1 to 5:
directness (does it answer the question asked), coherence (do the ideas follow),
precision (concrete details and clear references), compression (says a lot per word). The weighted
mix (30/30/25/15) is the exchange score. A person's published score averages their exchange
scores on raw tape only, at least 8 of them, shrunk toward the cohort mean.
Full method →
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.60
Q I mean, is it also like a more formal onboarding? Is there even an onboarding right now?
A The reality is that some projects are complicated enough that you have to, but, but hopefully you can get around it or, or find inventive ways. I mean, one of the things that we've noticed in the Node project is like we, we broken up things that you can get involved in. So if you just have the skills to work on a website, you can actually work on the Node.js website. And we see people transition from that into core because There was kind of a cultural barrier to entry that they're now passed, that they're, like, comfortable contributing to the project. So, you know, there is no formal onboarding process for the website. It's easy enough to contribute to. But then when they get over to Node Core, like, yes, there is, because it's just a little bit more difficult.
AI assessment note: “when they get over to Node Core, like, yes, there is”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q Do you think that your model of inverting that is what makes people hold to a higher bar so they're not sloppy? Like, do you think people are more sloppy when they know they have to go through a gatekeeper?
A No, I, no, I think that, like, the, the reason why it's not very sloppy is because we dramatically increase the number of, uh, committers. So, like, there are, you know, 90 people that can review this. Nothing is gonna make it in unless it's pretty nice. Um, and, but the reality is, like, you know, a fix to a test, a, a small adjustment here, a bug fix there, these are not issues that need to get, you know, decided upon by a formal body. Like, they're clearly valuable as, nobody's going to object to them, let's just let them get in. Um, and then, you know, when things are controversial, when people can't agree, that's when we escalate it, and we have a, we have a, a consensus seeking process. So it's actually a majority vote, but we try to reach a consensus if we can.
AI assessment note: “the reason why it's not very sloppy is because we dramatically increase the number”
Answered raw tape
D 5 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q And what are the, what were those incentives? Admitting that we're stereotyping a little here, but just in broad strokes. Like, how would you sort of paint the picture of what was the picture then and now?
A The people that he was describing were, uh, technically oriented people, whether they were programmers or not, who, you know, in their own time wanted to go and mess around with something. And, and, you know, because they wanted to, you know, get recognition, because they wanted to, whatever. Like, that, that was their motivation and that That was kind of where they were coming from. Whereas today, open source runs every business, every technology. Everybody is involved in it in some capacity if they're developing software. They contribute to and move around the open source software community as a contributor as part of their work, as part of their social life, as part of, like, any kind of side project that they do. And it's really usually not about recognition and about ego. I mean, all the people that are highly recognizable in modern open source communities Would, would trade it for three more people to help them merge patches. I think that some of this is really inverted.
AI assessment note: “wanted to, you know, get recognition... Whereas today, open source runs every business”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 5 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.30
Q How do you actually resolve conflict? I actually really want to get to the bottom of this one. What are the, some of the negotiations that happen both in the actual commit and in the actual verbalization?
A So one of the things that I've been a big fan of is, is inverting this, this whole notion. Usually, uh, you'll have like a small group of people, whether they're the committers or a smaller body of the committers that are making a lot of decisions. Right. And usually you, you put this in terms of like their gatekeeper, They have to make sure that every commit lands, right? They have to get agreement about that. That just doesn't scale. Like, there are too many contributions that need to land for that to be the case. Um, so what we do in Node and what we've actually encouraged other projects to do is invert that so that the default mode is for something to land. And, and you may make corrections to it. You may need to get them to change things, but everything's going to land. And things only escalate into these, like, people to make a formal decision if there is a conflict around it.
AI assessment note: “things only escalate into these, like, people to make a formal decision if there is”
Answered raw tape
D 4 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 4.00
Q I mean, is it also like a more formal onboarding? Is there even an onboarding right now?
A The reality is that some projects are complicated enough that you have to, but, but hopefully you can get around it or, or find inventive ways. I mean, one of the things that we've noticed in the Node project is like we, we broken up things that you can get involved in. So if you just have the skills to work on a website, you can actually work on the Node.js website. And we see people transition from that into core because There was kind of a cultural barrier to entry that they're now passed, that they're, like, comfortable contributing to the project. So, you know, there is no formal onboarding process for the website. It's easy enough to contribute to. But then when they get over to Node Core, like, yes, there is, because it's just a little bit more difficult.
AI assessment note: “when they get over to Node Core, like, yes, there is”
Answered raw tape
D 3 · C 4 · P 4 · Cm 4 3.70
Q How do you actually resolve conflict? I actually really want to get to the bottom of this one. What are the, some of the negotiations that happen both in the actual commit and in the actual verbalization?
A So one of the things that I've been a big fan of is, is inverting this, this whole notion. Usually, uh, you'll have like a small group of people, whether they're the committers or a smaller body of the committers that are making a lot of decisions. Right. And usually you, you put this in terms of like their gatekeeper, They have to make sure that every commit lands, right? They have to get agreement about that. That just doesn't scale. Like, there are too many contributions that need to land for that to be the case. Um, so what we do in Node and what we've actually encouraged other projects to do is invert that so that the default mode is for something to land. And, and you may make corrections to it. You may need to get them to change things, but everything's going to land. And things only escalate into these, like, people to make a formal decision if there is a conflict around it.
AI assessment note: “things only escalate into these, like, people to make a formal decision if there is a conflict”
