Your question is constructed in just such a way as to make your point for you. Hopefully you’ll see that it’s far too specific of a demand as to truly support your position. Would you provide me with a less specifically bounded question that you think still captures your position on this?
I asked you to provide an example of the situation you described. I was as specific as you were.
I will try to be more straightforward.
You've stated that Linus has a unique role, and that he has to be this way or he'll lose the kernel/ essentially be worse at his job.
You've provided no examples or evidence (and I asked).
In your opinion, Linus must be this way, it is "just required" by his unique position. We have this totally unknowable position that you, for no apparent reason, assume is best suited to people who insult others publicly. And because this position is unique we can't compare him to others, by nature of the position.
You have essentially placed Linus in a position where you could basically justify anything. "Oh, well, it's a very unique role - you just have to be xyz for this sort of work".
The thing is, Linus's position may be unique, but it has a lot in common with lots of positions we have a good handle on. There are lots of open source leaders out there, lots of people who manage codebases, write code, etc. Maybe not exactly all of those things in exactly the same way, but we have plenty of similar positions.
I do not imagine a community so vehemently defending members of those positions who act like Linus. By your own admission this is a bad model for others in the same exact industry with similar roles - you even say they should be fired for acting the way he does.
So I guess my question is; what unique aspect of Linus's role makes him so different from everyone else with incredibly similar roles? What evidence is there that, against everything we know about positions like the one he fills, acting the way he does is the right way for his role?
