In this context it sounds like an engineer who joins the company and suggests an improvement to or asks the reasoning behind why the style guide says something would be fired or receive reprimand. In an idea meritocracy on the other hand engineers are empowered to understand and question things. I have found that by questioning things, it helps me disagree and commit to things. I have found open discussion is what build alignment. I don’t think I would be happy working somewhere where I cannot question the reasoning behind a decision.

As an example, when I first joined Twitch, it was an uphill battle initially to get buy in for automatic code formatting, however through questioning and understanding their past decisions the team came around to implementing it, as well as numerous other improvements I still have engineers reach out to me thank me for years later. If they had this policy, it’s possible I would not have been around long enough to actually champion the improvements.

Are you familiar with the term Eternal September? That’s the downside to what you are suggesting.

I don’t say there’s no upside, only that sometimes the downside outweighs the upside (and sometimes it doesn’t.)

In other examples I received constructive coaching from a manager “the team feels like while you had valid points, you yak shaved/took it personally, in the future please write a doc instead of doing X”. No one was fired or reprimanded. No company wide policies were created. I can look back at my career at Twitch and honestly say I grew as an engineer, because they used positive reinforcement rather than negative reinforcement.

Such an awesome example. I didn’t know this phrase. Thanks for that.

In your opinion, when do such "improvements" tread the line between important and related philosophical questions to ideological glory-hogging and metooism? What you describe generally sounds like technical issues and computational philosophy in relation to the backend. That's appropriate to discuss even if there is confrontation involved. But what do think about Twitch's policies with regards to its frontend? Should employees have a say in how they get to interpret Twitch policies? Is it hypocritical that Twitch's moderators should go after unflattering speech (pogchamp, etc.) in the name of improving the platform when hiding behind a veil of ignorance with regards to so-called "booba"? A company can do what it wants and, in a more limited context, so can its employees. But shouldn't there be a point where a company's higher-ups or a single differing employee can do their business without being required to buy into the koolaid that ever improvement is supposed to be for the perceived good of the company/fellow employees/the cause/the world/etc. in every way possible? Especially if such a way is outside of one's actual depths? In short, when should people stop expecting "more" out of you?

I’m honestly not quite sure what you’re getting at, but employees at Twitch could indeed dissent about the moderation policy without being subject to termination as a result.

As an example, I was in charge of deploying the website the day we hosted a Trump rally. I made it well known to my team and manager that I did not like this, as did others, but I did my job anyways, and there were no flame wars, nor did anyone get fired. Although I disagreed with Emmets wishes, I still hold the utmost respect for him. The same cannot be said for Armstrong or DHH.

TLDR;

Should an employee have to accept ideological points for his company at face value even if it goes against his sense of workmanship or integrity? What about vice versa (companies vis a vis employees)?

How much does (or should) anyone's say diverge at Twitch especially from the dominant ideological creed (whether such a creed was employee-fostered or company-fostered)?

Where does one's technical achievement end and "the cause" begin?

No an employee should not have to accept anything, and in the US does not have to.

My key point here is that in companies that allow discussions, I can ask questions of the policies I disagree with to understand what motivates the policies. I can propose alternative viewpoints. Often, via having open uncensored discussions I find that it is much easier to disagree and commit

In the Emmet / Trump example, he explained the reasoning (we are a platform) and allowed us to grumble. Had there also been a policy that anyone complaining would be terminated, I’m not so sure I would have deployed the website that day.

Hope that answers your question

Thank you for answering my questions. I appreciate your insight.

In your opinion as a professional, what should Armstrong and DHH have done without kowtowing to their employees?

And while I still have your attention on Twitch, what is with the company's hypocritical stance on scantily-clad women (a la Alinity) and copyright abuses while claiming that it isn't allowed? Your employment seems to have been contemporaneous with those episodes, so it seems like you would know a few things.

I just deployed the website and worked on dev tooling, I don’t have any comment on Twitch moderation.

I’m not convinced Armstrong and DHH had such a drastic flame war problem, for example after banning politics, Armstrong made several public political rants including endorsing Kanye West - http://modernconsensus.com/politics/ceo-of-apolitical-coinba...

Perhaps they should have done what most other companies do, and ignore the “problem” if employees are otherwise productive, and if not then replace unproductive employees with productive ones. Whether an employee is productive is tangential to their political beliefs, and an employee who is causing waves over politics will just cause waves over something else if you ban politics.

I would work for someone who I disagreed with, but if an employer tries to silence me and turns around and advocates for their own political candidate, it seems to me the employer is being narrow minded, underhanded, and hypocritical