The basic structure and meaning of the response, in my own words, is:<\/p>\n
- \n
- Docker has an enormous community \u2014 we own all the mindshare, implying that we’re clearly right.<\/li>\n
- We’re moving up the stack. Since we own the mindshare, this is the right thing to do by virtue of us doing it.<\/li>\n
- We love open source, we swear, although we’re definitely in the right because the majority of people are with us.<\/li>\n
- There’s some minuscule group of people (all vendors, apparently) who disagree with our moves. They must be wrong because we’re taking efforts to point out that they’re vendors and not users. (ad hominem, anyone?)<\/li>\n
- We’re going to imply that the reason Rocket exists isn’t technical or philosophical, by presenting that option as the final corner case (“of course”). Aim being to convince developers that Rocket is just some NIH<\/a> thing that exists for no reason devs should care about.<\/li>\n
- In bold, at the very end, such as to be the take-home point of the whole post, is a line about “questionable rhetoric and timing”, followed by another implication that Docker Inc knows what’s best since it has this huge ecosystem.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
It’s particularly easy to see when you compare the initial post<\/a> to the current, updated version<\/a>:<\/p>\n
![\"Docker](\"http:\/\/dberkholz-media.redmonk.com\/dberkholz\/files\/2014\/12\/screenshot_from_2014-12-02_00_16_58.png\")
<\/a><\/p>\nWhat are the key differences?<\/p>\n
- \n
- A host of typos disappear. Their presence indicates this was rushed out the door very quickly. Why might that happen?<\/li>\n
- Emphasizing their commitment to the ecosystem, rather than solely the ecosystem’s commitment to them;<\/li>\n
- Clearly noting that Rocket’s raison d’\u00eatre<\/em>\u00a0appears to be true technical or philosophical differences; and<\/li>\n
- Removing the bolding on the final paragraph, although the wording remains.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
I’d interpret that\u00a0as Docker’s leadership initially having a panicked knee-jerk reaction. Couple their post with Docker cofounder and CTO Solomon Hykes’ behavior on Twitter<\/a> and on the Hacker News thread<\/a> on the\u00a0Rocket announcement\u00a0(1<\/a>, 2<\/a>, 3<\/a>, 4<\/a>, 5<\/a>), and you’ve got yourself a recipe for disaster.<\/p>\n
My experiences with abusive behavior in Gentoo have led me to speak<\/a> for years on the data and social-sciences research behind negative community interactions. One universally critical point is that you separate technical criticisms from emotional attacks, and Docker has failed to do so in this case.<\/strong> The Rocket announcement has some harsh words, no doubt about it. But taking them personally and then replying emotionally is exactly the wrong thing to do.<\/strong><\/p>\n
Responses from the community have largely been negative to Docker’s behavior throughout this process, with some exceptions:<\/p>\n
@dberkholz<\/a> the @newsycombinator<\/a> thread was just a total PR disaster for @docker<\/a>.I was appalled at their reaction & how unprofessional it was<\/p>\n
\u2014 Lance Albertson (@ramereth) December 2, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
docker’s response feels overly defensive and passive aggressive that it doesn’t even link to the Rocket post http:\/\/t.co\/T3lm3gnKZJ<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 Tatsuhiko Miyagawa (@miyagawa) December 2, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
@solomonstre<\/a> Your defensiveness & snark on HN made it sound like you think it’s a *very* dirty word.<\/p>\n
\u2014 Jason Ives (@jivebot) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Response from @docker<\/a> on the Rocket announcement. Interesting that they saw the need to comment so quickly http:\/\/t.co\/apiTJ5jpOm<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 Richard Seroter (@rseroter) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Docker’s response to CoreOS reads like an awkward first draft. Poor formatting, typos, and bad grammar. http:\/\/t.co\/xCHZAJq5Z9<\/a><\/p>\n
\u2014 Michael Schurter (@schmichael) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
I’m going to say exactly one thing. Nothing will shake people’s confidence in Docker more than Docker’s response to Rocket.<\/p>\n
\u2014 dad reid (@dreid) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
@dberkholz<\/a> it’s never panic when there are 2 second points. And the emphasis on the last paragraph was anti panic<\/p>\n
\u2014 David Pollak (@dpp) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
My initial take is that @docker<\/a> becoming more a platform and less of a primitive is pretty scary for @coreoslinux<\/a> and this is the response.<\/p>\n
\u2014 Mark Imbriaco (@markimbriaco) December 1, 2014<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n
- Removing the bolding on the final paragraph, although the wording remains.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
- In bold, at the very end, such as to be the take-home point of the whole post, is a line about “questionable rhetoric and timing”, followed by another implication that Docker Inc knows what’s best since it has this huge ecosystem.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n