The ideal outcome here is the person was going to remove their personal email address. The author of that message could achieve it in a few ways:
- Speak to the person like a professional and explain the company policy and give a little context on why things are the way they are
- Take a combative, aggressive tone and demand it be changed
The first builds trust, the second breeds resentment and hurts company image if it leaks (I guess when people resent you they'll take micro aggressive actions to embarrass you by leaking it).
A company where people who take the 2nd path are in a position of power is a toxic workplace with many broken systems in place.
I'm interpreting this comment is saying we think this is a "leak" and that it unprofessional to show off internal politics with our bosses.
Your response to a working in a dysfunctional workplace is to go soft and hope for the best? Sure, us white collar workers we think ourselves as so international and sophisticated and professional, but all this shame-driven toxic positivity gets us is a dystopian workplace.
At an old job I had, we got our functional workplace back by being combative against rude dysfunctional rules such as "no hobbies allowed" There was no reason to give in to shame and limit ourselves to peaceful, professional, and toxic positivity if all that would have got us in this situation is workplace dysfunction.
> I'm interpreting this comment is saying we think this is a "leak" and that it unprofessional to show off internal politics with our bosses.
Yes, I think including an exchange with your manager in a commit message is a leak, and one way the employee was able to get back at their manager for the draconian response. I don't think it's unprofessional. It's well within their right to write whatever commit message they want to an open source project. No identifiable information was included.
> Your response to a working in a dysfunctional workplace is to go soft and hope for the best? Sure, us white collar workers we think ourselves as so international and sophisticated and professional, but all this shame-driven toxic positivity gets us is a dystopian workplace.
No, my response is when you have people in charge who can't see the cost / benefit of actions and take the one that's emotionally charged (maybe because they were annoyed or had a rough day) but ultimately damaging over one that is more beneficial (to the employee, to the company, to the manager's career), you may be working in a dysfunctional company.
> At an old job I had, we got our functional workplace back by being combative against rude dysfunctional rules such as "no hobbies allowed" There was no reason to give in to shame and limit ourselves to peaceful, professional, and toxic positivity if all that would have got us in this situation is workplace dysfunction.
I don't have an opinion on this. You can be "combative" in a professional way. You challenge process changes with data. Asking questions is not combative, by the way.
Yep, definitely agree with this. Management is always testing out the waters, seeing how much they can push a worker to work. They want more units of productivity out of you for the price they're paying you. But we can fight back to some degree, simply by saying 'no' to things, but we gotta be careful. Saying no too often will land you in the no-promotion bucket when reviews come around, or can get you canned. But politics is politics, and we're all forced into playing it.
Although, when a group of workers decide to band together to fight back, that's a different story, and that's when things get interesting. :D
We have no evidence that the first thing wasn't attempted.
Furthermore, from the phrasing of the message (refuting the idea that one can contribute to one's employer's project as a hobby), we have some evidence that there was previous context, unknown to us.
- Speak to the person like a professional and explain the company policy and give a little context on why things are the way they are
- Take a combative, aggressive tone and demand it be changed
The first builds trust, the second breeds resentment and hurts company image if it leaks (I guess when people resent you they'll take micro aggressive actions to embarrass you by leaking it).
A company where people who take the 2nd path are in a position of power is a toxic workplace with many broken systems in place.