Going to Twitter is akin to having a disagreement at work, standing up and shouting across the whole office at the person you disagree with. I haven't been in an office in awhile, is that what people do nowadays?

... No. At least not where I work.

It doesn't really need to be taken to Twitter. There's almost zero benefit in publicly shaming your colleague like this.

Twitter is also (but isn't the only) tabloid social media. It promotes the sharing of sensational and one-sided content that is scant on details. I know we're supposed to be critical about what we read, but my first instinct was to assume Henry was a bad guy.

It would have been better to see this discussion in a forum or mailing list or anywhere that is designed for an actual longform discussion. Even if in public longer more detailed discussions can capture the nuance.

Taking it to Twitter makes the criticizing person look super toxic. I think reputation can be saved by doing this privately

Personally, I think Seb burnt his own rep and the rep of Rome tools, and unfortunately it reflects really really poorly on his cofounder as well.

A disagreement between two individuals should be initially communicated between those two and ideally resolved privately. Hopefully both sides have enough empathy to understand the other's perspective to reach an amicable conclusion.

Airing out on Twitter as a first response (not sure if that's what happened here) is a sign of immaturity and not what someone does if their goal is to fix the original concern. By airing it out on Twitter, you put the other person on the defensive and they're less inclined to actually help you to resolve the original complaint.

Airing it out on Twitter is an escalation, and a decent outlet for escalating issues that are systematic and/or can't be resolved through other communication channels.

> Airing out on Twitter as a first response (not sure if that's what happened here)

No, this is after the issue has been corrected, which is even worse