diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'Documentation/ManagementStyle')
| -rw-r--r-- | Documentation/ManagementStyle | 276 |
1 files changed, 276 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/Documentation/ManagementStyle b/Documentation/ManagementStyle new file mode 100644 index 00000000000..cbbebfb51ff --- /dev/null +++ b/Documentation/ManagementStyle @@ -0,0 +1,276 @@ + + 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. + +Management style is very personal and much harder to quantify than +simple coding style rules, so this document may or may not have anything +to do with reality. It started as a lark, but that doesn't mean that it +might not actually be true. You'll have to decide for yourself. + +Btw, when talking about "kernel manager", it's all about the technical +lead persons, not the people who do traditional management inside +companies. If you sign purchase orders or you have any clue about the +budget of your group, you're almost certainly not a kernel manager. +These suggestions may or may not apply to you. + +First off, I'd suggest buying "Seven Habits of Highly Successful +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. + +Anyway, here goes: + + + Chapter 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 +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 +you for a technical decision, you're screwed. You're clearly not +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 +your brilliance instead). + +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 +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 +backtracking. Suddenly, you get to be doubly managerial for making +_two_ inconsequential decisions - the wrong one _and_ the right one. + +And people will even see that as true leadership (*cough* bullshit +*cough*). + +Thus the key to avoiding big decisions becomes to just avoiding to do +things that can't be undone. Don't get ushered into a corner from which +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 +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 +back-tracking is very easy: just tell everybody that you were an +incompetent nincompoop, say you're sorry, and undo all the worthless +work you had people work on for the last year. Suddenly the decision +you made a year ago wasn't a big decision after all, since it could be +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 + 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 + all. + +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 +stupid thing. + +Then, when it really does turn out to be stupid, people just roll their +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 +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. + +Remember: they'd better know more about the details than you do, and +they usually already think they have the answer to everything. The best +thing you can do as a manager is not to instill confidence, but rather a +healthy dose of critical thinking on what they do. + +Btw, another way to avoid a decision is to plaintively just whine "can't +we just do both?" and look pitiful. Trust me, it works. If it's not +clear which approach is better, they'll eventually figure it out. The +answer may end up being that both teams get so frustrated by the +situation that they just give up. + +That may sound like a failure, but it's usually a sign that there was +something wrong with both projects, and the reason the people involved +couldn't decide was that they were both wrong. You end up coming up +smelling like roses, and you avoided yet another decision that you could +have screwed up on. + + + Chapter 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_. + +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 +theirs - and yours. + +However, in order to prepare yourself as a kernel manager, it's best to +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. + +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 +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 +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 + might even be amused. + +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 Lose 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 + +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 +knowledge that we're better than the average person (let's face it, +nobody ever believes that they're average or below-average), we should +also admit that we're not the sharpest knife around, and there will be +other people that are less of an idiot that you are. + +Some people react badly to smart people. Others take advantage of them. + +Make sure that you, as a kernel maintainer, are in the second group. +Suck up to them, because they are the people who will make your job +easier. In particular, they'll be able to make your decisions for you, +which is what the game is all about. + +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 +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 +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 +direction, just don't push too hard. + + + Chapter 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 +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 +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. + +Taking the blame is also why you get to be manager in the first place. +It's part of what makes people trust you, and allow you the potential +glory, because you're the one who gets to say "I screwed up". And if +you've followed the previous rules, you'll be pretty good at saying that +by now. + + + Chapter 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 +first you can apologize for, the second one you won't really get the +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 +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 (*). + +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 +internet, nobody can hear you being subtle". Use a big blunt object to +hammer the point in, because you can't really depend on people getting +your point otherwise. + +Some humor can help pad both the bluntness and the moralizing. Going +overboard to the point of being ridiculous can drive a point home +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. + + + Chapter 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 +you're incompetent, the obvious question becomes one of why do it in the +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 +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. + +It's a great job if you can hack it. |