Re: WIP: CoC V5

On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Regina Obe <lr(at)pcorp(dot)us> wrote:

> Another anecdotal thing. Personal attacks sometimes soften the blow. Take
> that as you will.
>
>
>
> For example if Tom makes some snide remark like "Do all Bostonians program
> this way?"
>
>
>
> It would lessen the blow of the criticism of the code as I would think
> he's making fun of Bostonians coding style more than he is about my
> abilities, and I as a Bostonian just don't know any better.
>
> He can also make fun of my tabbing style and say "What's wrong with your
> editor? Perhaps you need to use a different one or change the settings"
>
>
>
> Although maybe those don't constitute personal attacks. I don't know.
>

That's why I am not such a fan of rules and a larger fan of mediation,
discussion etc as an effort to work out issues.

>
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Regina
>
>
>
> *From:* Regina Obe [mailto:lr(at)pcorp(dot)us]
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:08 AM
> *To:* 'Chris Travers' <chris(dot)travers(at)gmail(dot)com>
> *Cc:* 'Geoff Winkless' <pgsqladmin(at)geoff(dot)dj>; 'Psql_General (E-mail)' <
> pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> *Subject:* RE: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5
>
>
>
> > On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> >> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y,
> >> and Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points.
> >> "Of any kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the
> >> "personal attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be
> better?
>
> > One thing to think about here is the idea of framing the process. One
> reason it might be a good idea to have a "respect the commons" clause is
> that it becomes a good way to think about the interaction of review and
> technical discussion. I.e. both sides want to improve
>
> > the software. The focus is on the software, not on the other person.
>
> > People *can* take offense when you say their code is not good enough,
> particularly when it is true, because for better or worse we do often
> identify with what we produce. But I would hope that if the focus is on
> improvement of the software the this becomes at least a
>
> > bit less of a problem..
>
>
>
> --
>
> > Best Wishes,
>
> > Chris Travers
>
>
>
> Very good point. I know personally I feel more hurt at my code being
> criticized than someone criticizing some random aspect of me. That said
>
>
>
> Perhaps something like
>
>
>
> "we judge contributions primarily based on how easily it fits into our
> existing code base and the popularity of the problem or feature it targets"
>
>
>
> I was going to talk about correctness and all that, but I think that's
> kind of inferred by the comment about fitting into our existing code base.
> If it's not correct it wouldn't fit anyway.
>
>
>
> Thanks,
>
> Regina
>

--
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor
lock-in.
http://www.efficito.com/learn_more