From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: John Keeping Subject: Re: [PATCH] Documentation/CommunityGuidelines Date: Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:14:18 +0100 Message-ID: <20130612131418.GA23890@serenity.lan> References: <51B6AA7F.1060505@alum.mit.edu> <7v38sod1kn.fsf@alter.siamese.dyndns.org> <20130611182936.GM22905@serenity.lan> <20130611195452.GO22905@serenity.lan> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: Junio C Hamano , Michael Haggerty , Git List , Jonathan Nieder , A Large Angry SCM To: Ramkumar Ramachandra X-From: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Wed Jun 12 15:14:41 2013 Return-path: Envelope-to: gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org Received: from vger.kernel.org ([209.132.180.67]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Umksp-0001fj-3z for gcvg-git-2@plane.gmane.org; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 15:14:39 +0200 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752170Ab3FLNOf (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:14:35 -0400 Received: from coyote.aluminati.org ([72.9.247.114]:49041 "EHLO coyote.aluminati.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751402Ab3FLNOe (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Jun 2013 09:14:34 -0400 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by coyote.aluminati.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF286064C8; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:14:33 +0100 (BST) X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at caracal.aluminati.org X-Spam-Flag: NO X-Spam-Score: -12.9 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-12.9 tagged_above=-9999 required=6.31 tests=[ALL_TRUSTED=-1, ALUMINATI_LOCAL_TESTS=-10, BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham Received: from coyote.aluminati.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (coyote.aluminati.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IvJ2qzv1UIJU; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:14:33 +0100 (BST) Received: from serenity.lan (tg1.aluminati.org [10.0.16.53]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by coyote.aluminati.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AE7AB606506; Wed, 12 Jun 2013 14:14:24 +0100 (BST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Sender: git-owner@vger.kernel.org Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org Archived-At: On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:56:27PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote: > John Keeping wrote: > >> Either way, I'm not interested in problems that have no solutions. > >> The only "solution" I see here is to suffocate every contributor until > >> they are "tactful enough" for the majority's liking, and "remove" the > >> ones that don't conform. If you do have an alternate solution, please > >> share it with us. > > > > I don't have a solution, only a hope that regular contributors will > > learn from others how they can phrase review comments less aggressively. > > The reviewer is not a thick-skinned bull that wants to harm the project. > > 4. Lead by example. If you do not like how someone presents > themselves on the list, you counter it by presenting yourself nicely > on the list. Others will follow your example, making that person's > behavior the minority. I think that's what everyone is trying to do, the problem is when the axiom "others will follow your example" fails. In that case it is important to address the issue. It is equally important to do this in a way that does not assume malice on the part of the reviewer. It is quite possible that when English is not someone's first language then they may not realise how their words are being interpreted by some people. In this case a friendly message sent off the mailing list may be appropriate. > It is far more powerful than explicitly > stating what is "acceptable" behavior and what is not. > > > I expect different people will read the same statement differently; > > people are from different cultures and what is considered acceptable in > > one culture can be considered rude in another. We should aim to > > cultivate our own culture where we try to minimise the risk that what we > > write will be misinterpreted by someone with a different cultural > > background. > > So you have agreed that "tone" is subjective, and that attempting to > objectively state the "right tone" is a lost cause. It is subjective *to some degree*. If a reviewer takes care, then it is possible to write a message that minimises the risk that the words can be interpreted in a way that is not what was intended. If we do end up having community guidelines, then I think that point is very important. It is equally important that readers do not assume that the tone in which they read an email is that in which it was intended but I think that human nature makes that half harder.