You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> on 2015/09/10 15:18:10 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Hello,
I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
Michelle Phung
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Garren Smith <ga...@apache.org>.
I think a design mailing list would be great.
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 4:24 PM, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>> On 10. sep. 2015, at 16.15, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> I recently was asked how to render a front end application visualization that could potentially have millions of data points and could break the client.
>> My initial response to this was to bin the data, then render it, but as I thought about it over the next couple of days, it seemed like a good topic for discussion.
>
> I think this is the kind of cases where d3 and map/reduce on a large data set could be perfect.
>
> Based on the interactive d3 infographic, Couch serves up various views of a massive data set to a client-side d3 chart that has its own in-browser ways of handling lots of data.
>
> Johs
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Hi,
> On 10. sep. 2015, at 16.15, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> I recently was asked how to render a front end application visualization that could potentially have millions of data points and could break the client.
> My initial response to this was to bin the data, then render it, but as I thought about it over the next couple of days, it seemed like a good topic for discussion.
I think this is the kind of cases where d3 and map/reduce on a large data set could be perfect.
Based on the interactive d3 infographic, Couch serves up various views of a massive data set to a client-side d3 chart that has its own in-browser ways of handling lots of data.
Johs
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>.
Hi Johs!
Thanks! I am interested in data journalism, and data visualizations as well.
Using CouchDB with d3 in an app could be really interesting.
There is another library called RaphaelJS that is pretty good. (http://raphaeljs.com/)
It is more SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) focused, so their aren’t as many functions that work on collections of data, but it’s a powerful tool for designers to make their own visualizations, and not be “locked-in” to the visualizations that D3 has already set up. (And everything scales! it’s built for scaling :)
Another library I’ve been playing around with is called ProcessingJS.
This library is art focused as well, but people are picking up to create interesting stuff. Some neat stuff with this community.
Checkout http://www.openprocessing.org/ for demo’s and sketches.
and http://processingjs.org/ for info on the language.
I’d like to explore these more :)
Also, I was thinking that there is the issue of how Fauxton is a data visualization of our data, and the @design mailing list will be a good place to brainstorm ideas for Fauxton.
But all design related discussions are welcome, including how to build visualizations with CouchDB powering the data.
For example, I’d like to think about some ways to scale the visualizations. Not like height and width, but what to do if my data viz has million of data points? I recently was asked how to render a front end application visualization that could potentially have millions of data points and could break the client.
My initial response to this was to bin the data, then render it, but as I thought about it over the next couple of days, it seemed like a good topic for discussion.
and I am open to hearing what others would think is the best approach for that type of situation.
- Michelle
> On Sep 10, 2015, at 9:24 AM, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
>
> Good idea, Michelle!
>
> One idea that I think could be powerful for a group like this is to explore d3
> Data journalism is a strong wave and CouchDB and d3 are a perfect match.
>
> It's also showcase Couch in a powerful way outside the DBA group.
>
> Other 2D and 3D graphics libraries in JavaScript might also bring users to Couch.
>
> Johs
>
>
>> On 10. sep. 2015, at 15.18, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
>>
>> It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
>> It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
>>
>> Michelle Phung
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Good idea, Michelle!
One idea that I think could be powerful for a group like this is to explore d3
Data journalism is a strong wave and CouchDB and d3 are a perfect match.
It's also showcase Couch in a powerful way outside the DBA group.
Other 2D and 3D graphics libraries in JavaScript might also bring users to Couch.
Johs
> On 10. sep. 2015, at 15.18, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
>
> It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
> It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
>
> Michelle Phung
>
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Michelle, Robert and ermouth,
I very much agree with ermouth that the old-fashioned email list is not for designers.
I don't know why IRC and plain text email stick with developers, but they surely won't build a designer community effficiently.
We need to use a social media platform suitable for proposal writing and discussion.
On the proposal development process, this is something I see holding the CouchDB community back.
Even when processes are announced, they seem to be ignored. A very common break-down og communications is when discussions of process and issue mix.
It is often worthwhile discussing a process separately and conclude before tackling the issues.
Choosing a platform with features that intuitively support a process could be seen as a short-cut to a healthy process.
What I would suggest is to use Medium.com <http://medium.com/>
Each contributor is forced into developing an article and may illustrate as needed
Comments are added inline and makes an excellent platform for discussion, keeping the comments aside and short, yet in context, with the original proposal in focus
The Author of a proposal is in charge of the commenting on her/his proposal and may privately explain why some comments are not included
The article can be developed over time - with its comments - rather than referring the readers an unreadable thread
The contributions in the form of proposals (articles) under continuous development with comments from any Medium user would come together on a **publication** that would be curated by an assigned person.
Here is an example of such a publication https://medium.com/user-experience-design-1 <https://medium.com/user-experience-design-1>
Instead of establishing another mailing list, the Medium publication could then be referred to on the marketing list when new proposals arrive.
johs
> On 14. sep. 2015, at 01.10, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks, Robert. Good sincere questions.
>
>> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
> place for many designers?"
>
> 0. ML *must* have markup. Can‘t imagine any article on design without
> markup.
> 1. Thrieving place means good content. I thought a minute and couldn‘t
> remember, when I read _any_ special content about design+CouchDb last time.
> Although there are several topics seen, I even have one article half
> written )
> 2. Good modern thrieving place allows easy join and ability to comment and
> interact. I fought 2 times trying to comment on articles issued before I
> joined ML. Unsuccesfully. All these procedures with emails are completely
> out of practice, they are unacceptable for designer community. It‘s ok for
> devs – but not for designers.
>
> So welcome design@ ML, but may be some underlying platform changes first? I
> don‘t know, are they possible or not although.
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-12 22:08 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
>
>>> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
>>> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
>>> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
>>> their life easy and to not loose even them
>>
>> That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small
>> because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback
>> they receive.
>>
>> I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not
>> getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There
>> is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful
>> for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me"
>> or "we don't attract enough people for that".
>>
>> It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we
>> could fix the problem instead.
>>
>> Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to
>> try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have
>> to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't
>> encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of
>> friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry.
>>
>> When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to
>> the project they would have made me go away from the project.
>>
>> In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like
>> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
>> place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a
>> problem.
>>
>> For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work
>> further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and
>> I think it would also apply to others.
>>
>> </offtopic>
>>
>> I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it
>> easier for designers to participate in CouchDB.
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>
>>> wrote:
>>>> You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it
>> :)
>>>>
>>>> I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use
>>> it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
>>>
>>> Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
>>>
>>>> We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
>>>> Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being
>>> discussed (for new people).
>>>>
>>>> I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and
>>> people know right away its about design.
>>>> It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
>>>
>>> Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
>>> to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
>>> it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
>>> Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
>>>
>>> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
>>> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
>>> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
>>> their life easy and to not loose even them.
>>>
>>> There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
>>> discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
>>> want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
>>> active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
>>> have it now.
>>>
>>> --
>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Robert. Good sincere questions.
> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
place for many designers?"
0. ML *must* have markup. Can‘t imagine any article on design without
markup.
1. Thrieving place means good content. I thought a minute and couldn‘t
remember, when I read _any_ special content about design+CouchDb last time.
Although there are several topics seen, I even have one article half
written )
2. Good modern thrieving place allows easy join and ability to comment and
interact. I fought 2 times trying to comment on articles issued before I
joined ML. Unsuccesfully. All these procedures with emails are completely
out of practice, they are unacceptable for designer community. It‘s ok for
devs – but not for designers.
So welcome design@ ML, but may be some underlying platform changes first? I
don‘t know, are they possible or not although.
ermouth
2015-09-12 22:08 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
> > While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> > enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> > community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> > their life easy and to not loose even them
>
> That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small
> because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback
> they receive.
>
> I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not
> getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There
> is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful
> for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me"
> or "we don't attract enough people for that".
>
> It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we
> could fix the problem instead.
>
> Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to
> try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have
> to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't
> encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of
> friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry.
>
> When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to
> the project they would have made me go away from the project.
>
> In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like
> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
> place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a
> problem.
>
> For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work
> further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and
> I think it would also apply to others.
>
> </offtopic>
>
> I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it
> easier for designers to participate in CouchDB.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > > You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it
> :)
> > >
> > > I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use
> > it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
> >
> > Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
> >
> > > We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
> > > Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being
> > discussed (for new people).
> > >
> > > I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and
> > people know right away its about design.
> > > It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
> >
> > Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
> > to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
> > it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
> > Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
> >
> > While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> > enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> > community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> > their life easy and to not loose even them.
> >
> > There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
> > discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
> > want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
> > active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
> > have it now.
> >
> > --
> > ,,,^..^,,,
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post
> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
> with this.
>
> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to
> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then
> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>
> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed – nobody
> dare to say ‘but’.
I have not once said “the word but is now banned by a totalitarian regime” or anything even remotely appropriately similar. Nobody will fault anyone else here for using the word “but” and most other words.
I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way™ to make a friendly communication culture for the improvement of the project short- and long-term. If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
Best
Jan
--
>
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>
>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
>>> and how they are different?
>>
>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example
>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play
>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>
>>
>> “But…”-style:
>>
>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>
>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>
>> “…”
>>
>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the
>> project>
>>
>>
>>
>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>
>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>
>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the
>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for
>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>
>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
>> name as design@ is.”
>>
>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more
>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list
>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>
>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient,
>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting
>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a
>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is
>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure
>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making
>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it
>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does
>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after,
>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned
>> out.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> I am sorry Cloudant broke somethings of yours. We were trying to make
things safer. We did not mean to intentionally break anything.
Thank you, Michelle, it‘s all quiet obvious. The problem is not in bug
itself, it‘s not so severe. Problem is in support, that said ‘We know about
the bug, but can not say, when we‘ll fix it’. What‘s the value of in-situ
support, if customer have to banter on CSRF logo at twitter for having bugs
really fixed?
ermouth
2015-09-14 17:46 GMT+03:00 Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>:
> Hello!
>
> I woke up today, with the first thing on my todo list: submit a ticket to
> create a design@ML account. (Sry Kxepal!)
>
> But then, I did not expect all the responses :)
>
> It is a pleasant surprise for one of my proposal to generate so many
> emails.
> It means that the community is *active*, and that people are passionate
> and feel empowered enough to have an opinion to make it a better place. And
> good ideas are always welcome remember?
>
> I really like that everyone is welcome to voice their opinions and
> thoughts on the mailing list.
> No one is a mind reader. But reading gives us a secret power to reading
> thoughts.
>
> The mailing list gives me a searchable, and easy way to keep up with
> everything, it is nearly real-time,
> but can also work async, and it also gives people the chance to formulate
> their thoughts a bit better than IRC.
>
> I thought that a design@ML would be best for this,
>
> HOWEVER, now after reading the discussion, I have changed my mind, and now
> believe that that hosting design discussions for designers would be better
> on a platform like medium.com, or at least someplace where we can host
> screenshots of our ideas.
>
> That is a good idea! I am going to submit a proposal to do that instead of
> the mailing list idea.
>
> It will *SHOW* we are really trying to make the community a welcome place
> for designers,
> in their own language, without the overhead of a ML.
>
> Lets move our platform-for-design-for-CouchDB discussion stuff there.
>
> The other stuff:
> - You guys are arguing over what will make the CouchDB community
> better, the MOST. This is a bit silly, but makes me smile, and my heart
> swell with pride and happiness that everyone is on-board and trying making
> this better.
> - All of this is hard to do.
> - I think everyone is doing a good job.
>
> Michelle
>
> PS. ermouth: I am sorry Cloudant broke somethings of yours. We were trying
> to make things safer. We did not mean to intentionally break anything.
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:22 AM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> >> that we have the best of the project in mind
> >
> > If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> > stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> > current approach – he is right.
> >
> > I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely,
> he
> > trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> ortogonal
> > to trust.
> >
> > Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> > Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
> > how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> barbarian
> > in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> >
> >> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> here
> >
> > Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> > unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
> that
> > if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> > first.
> >
> >> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> > feedback, when you
> >> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> >
> > Absolutely. +1000.
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> >>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> >>>
> >>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> >> only
> >>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
> >>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can
> we
> >>> avoid that?
> >>
> >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
> >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
> >> with each other.
> >>
> >> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
> >> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> about
> >> our culture. How can I improve that?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> >>
> >> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> excuses
> >> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this
> out
> >> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
> >> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
> kind
> >> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ermouth
> >>>
> >>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> >>>>
> >>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
> why
> >>>> this is supposed to work?”
> >>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> >>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> >> ‘but’,
> >>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> >>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> >> have
> >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> disagreeing
> >>>> with each other.”
> >>>>
> >>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting
> >> post
> >>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> contributors
> >>>>> with this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but
> >> to
> >>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> >> then
> >>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> >>>> nobody
> >>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Jan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> that
> >> we
> >>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> styles
> >>>>>>> and how they are different?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> >>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> >>>> example
> >>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> >>>> re-play
> >>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone
> in
> >>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “But…”-style:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “…”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> leaves
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> project>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> have
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> list
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> inviting a
> >>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even
> >> more
> >>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> mailing
> >>>> list
> >>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
> we
> >>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> >>>> efficient,
> >>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> >>>> cutting
> >>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose
> >> as
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> contributors
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> makes
> >>>> sure
> >>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> >> making
> >>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> >> Long-term,
> >>>> it
> >>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> >> does
> >>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> >>>> after,
> >>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
> >>>> burned
> >>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Hit send too soon, see below
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 10:39:01 PM
> Subject: Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
>
> Hey there.
>
> One thing we need to consider, Michelle:
>
> The Bylaws for CouchDB and the Apache community guidelines state
> that all official *decisions* for the project must be reached on
> an official mailing list - not a Slack instance or IRC or an in-
> person meeting. We've (the PMC have) fought with this for
> years, and in the end we've always come to the conclusion that
> using
a mailing list gives us exactly what you said would be good:
a permanent record of the choices made, a way to ensure everyone
can participate (everyone has access to Email, but not necessarily
to IRC or Slack, and definitely not being somewhere in person), and
a simple format for proposals that everyone can agree upon. It's
also a push-not-pull format, which ensures everyone who wants to
be involved, can be.
>
> So in the spirit of Yes And: Please use anything and everything
> you want to help inform the discussion and get creative juices
> flowing. But also please create the design@ mailing list and use
> it to make official decisions for the project when it comes time
> to make [PROPOSAL] and [VOTE] threads.
>
> Thanks,
> Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Michelle Phung" <mi...@apache.org>
> > To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> > Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:46:58 AM
> > Subject: Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create
> > design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
> >
> > Hello!
> >
> > I woke up today, with the first thing on my todo list: submit a
> > ticket to create a design@ML account. (Sry Kxepal!)
> >
> > But then, I did not expect all the responses :)
> >
> > It is a pleasant surprise for one of my proposal to generate so
> > many
> > emails.
> > It means that the community is *active*, and that people are
> > passionate and feel empowered enough to have an opinion to make it
> > a
> > better place. And good ideas are always welcome remember?
> >
> > I really like that everyone is welcome to voice their opinions and
> > thoughts on the mailing list.
> > No one is a mind reader. But reading gives us a secret power to
> > reading thoughts.
> >
> > The mailing list gives me a searchable, and easy way to keep up
> > with
> > everything, it is nearly real-time,
> > but can also work async, and it also gives people the chance to
> > formulate their thoughts a bit better than IRC.
> >
> > I thought that a design@ML would be best for this,
> >
> > HOWEVER, now after reading the discussion, I have changed my mind,
> > and now believe that that hosting design discussions for designers
> > would be better on a platform like medium.com, or at least
> > someplace
> > where we can host screenshots of our ideas.
> >
> > That is a good idea! I am going to submit a proposal to do that
> > instead of the mailing list idea.
> >
> > It will *SHOW* we are really trying to make the community a welcome
> > place for designers,
> > in their own language, without the overhead of a ML.
> >
> > Lets move our platform-for-design-for-CouchDB discussion stuff
> > there.
> >
> > The other stuff:
> > - You guys are arguing over what will make the CouchDB community
> > better, the MOST. This is a bit silly, but makes me smile, and my
> > heart swell with pride and happiness that everyone is on-board and
> > trying making this better.
> > - All of this is hard to do.
> > - I think everyone is doing a good job.
> >
> > Michelle
> >
> > PS. ermouth: I am sorry Cloudant broke somethings of yours. We were
> > trying to make things safer. We did not mean to intentionally break
> > anything.
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:22 AM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > >> that we have the best of the project in mind
> > >
> > > If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts
> > > are
> > > stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@
> > > with
> > > current approach – he is right.
> > >
> > > I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> > > Surely, he
> > > trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> > > ortogonal
> > > to trust.
> > >
> > > Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a
> > > solution.
> > > Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> > > imagine,
> > > how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> > > barbarian
> > > in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> > >
> > >> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired
> > >> participating here
> > >
> > > Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want
> > > to
> > > unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point
> > > out, that
> > > if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by
> > > yourself
> > > first.
> > >
> > >> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is
> > >> false-positive
> > > feedback, when you
> > >> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> > >
> > > Absolutely. +1000.
> > >
> > > ermouth
> > >
> > > 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >>
> > >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > >>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > >>>
> > >>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme
> > >>> unfriendliness is
> > >> only
> > >>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that
> > >>> people are
> > >>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general.
> > >>> How can we
> > >>> avoid that?
> > >>
> > >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that
> > >> we have
> > >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >> disagreeing
> > >> with each other.
> > >>
> > >> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll
> > >> leave the
> > >> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good
> > >> suggestions about
> > >> our culture. How can I improve that?
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> > >>
> > >> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with
> > >> lazy
> > >> excuses
> > >> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially
> > >> called
> > >> this out
> > >> in my original message, and now we already have a number of
> > >> messages on
> > >> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue.
> > >> That’s
> > >> the kind
> > >> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> > >>
> > >> Best
> > >> Jan
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>>
> > >>> ermouth
> > >>>
> > >>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on
> > >>>> how
> > >>>> and why
> > >>>> this is supposed to work?”
> > >>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > >>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to
> > >>>> say
> > >> ‘but’,
> > >>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid
> > >>>> that?”
> > >>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other,
> > >>>> that we
> > >> have
> > >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >>>> disagreeing
> > >>>> with each other.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best
> > >>>> Jan
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> > >>>>> “Starting
> > >> post
> > >>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> > >>>>> contributors
> > >>>>> with this.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to
> > >>>>> subscribe, but
> > >> to
> > >>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more
> > >>>>> uncomfortable,
> > >> then
> > >>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions
> > >>>>> undiscussed –
> > >>>> nobody
> > >>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin
> > >>>>>>> <kx...@gmail.com>
> > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Hi Jan
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt
> > >>>>>>> <ja...@apache.org>
> > >> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks
> > >>>>>>>> like that
> > >> we
> > >>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..."
> > >>>>>>> feedback
> > >>>>>>> styles
> > >>>>>>> and how they are different?
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our
> > >>>>>> previous
> > >>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking
> > >>>>>> on
> > >>>>>> your
> > >>>> example
> > >>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t
> > >>>>>> mean
> > >>>>>> to
> > >>>> re-play
> > >>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> > >>>>>> anyone in
> > >>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “But…”-style:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses
> > >>>>>> that.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “…”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original
> > >>>>>> suggestion
> > >>>>>> leaves
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> project>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We
> > >>>>>> still have
> > >>>> the
> > >>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@
> > >>>>>> mailing list
> > >>>> for
> > >>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> > >>>>>> inviting a
> > >>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would
> > >>>>>> be
> > >>>>>> even
> > >> more
> > >>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> > >>>>>> mailing
> > >>>> list
> > >>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with,
> > >>>>>> maybe we
> > >>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot
> > >>>>>> more
> > >>>> efficient,
> > >>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first
> > >>>>>> place,
> > >>>>>> so
> > >>>> cutting
> > >>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> > >>>>>> purpose
> > >> as
> > >>>> a
> > >>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> > >>>>>> contributors
> > >>>> is
> > >>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success.
> > >>>>>> It makes
> > >>>> sure
> > >>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse
> > >>>>>> ideas
> > >> making
> > >>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > >> Long-term,
> > >>>> it
> > >>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks,
> > >>>>>> but it
> > >> does
> > >>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project
> > >>>>>> right
> > >>>> after,
> > >>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest
> > >>>>>> or
> > >>>>>> simply
> > >>>> burned
> > >>>>>> out.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Hey there.
One thing we need to consider, Michelle:
The Bylaws for CouchDB and the Apache community guidelines state
that all official *decisions* for the project must be reached on
an official mailing list - not a Slack instance or IRC or an in-
person meeting. We've (the PMC have) fought with this for
years, and in the end we've always come to the conclusion that
using
So in the spirit of Yes And: Please use anything and everything
you want to help inform the discussion and get creative juices
flowing. But also please create the design@ mailing list and use
it to make official decisions for the project when it comes time
to make [PROPOSAL] and [VOTE] threads.
Thanks,
Joan
----- Original Message -----
> From: "Michelle Phung" <mi...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Monday, September 14, 2015 10:46:58 AM
> Subject: Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
>
> Hello!
>
> I woke up today, with the first thing on my todo list: submit a
> ticket to create a design@ML account. (Sry Kxepal!)
>
> But then, I did not expect all the responses :)
>
> It is a pleasant surprise for one of my proposal to generate so many
> emails.
> It means that the community is *active*, and that people are
> passionate and feel empowered enough to have an opinion to make it a
> better place. And good ideas are always welcome remember?
>
> I really like that everyone is welcome to voice their opinions and
> thoughts on the mailing list.
> No one is a mind reader. But reading gives us a secret power to
> reading thoughts.
>
> The mailing list gives me a searchable, and easy way to keep up with
> everything, it is nearly real-time,
> but can also work async, and it also gives people the chance to
> formulate their thoughts a bit better than IRC.
>
> I thought that a design@ML would be best for this,
>
> HOWEVER, now after reading the discussion, I have changed my mind,
> and now believe that that hosting design discussions for designers
> would be better on a platform like medium.com, or at least someplace
> where we can host screenshots of our ideas.
>
> That is a good idea! I am going to submit a proposal to do that
> instead of the mailing list idea.
>
> It will *SHOW* we are really trying to make the community a welcome
> place for designers,
> in their own language, without the overhead of a ML.
>
> Lets move our platform-for-design-for-CouchDB discussion stuff there.
>
> The other stuff:
> - You guys are arguing over what will make the CouchDB community
> better, the MOST. This is a bit silly, but makes me smile, and my
> heart swell with pride and happiness that everyone is on-board and
> trying making this better.
> - All of this is hard to do.
> - I think everyone is doing a good job.
>
> Michelle
>
> PS. ermouth: I am sorry Cloudant broke somethings of yours. We were
> trying to make things safer. We did not mean to intentionally break
> anything.
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:22 AM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> >> that we have the best of the project in mind
> >
> > If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts
> > are
> > stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@
> > with
> > current approach – he is right.
> >
> > I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> > Surely, he
> > trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> > ortogonal
> > to trust.
> >
> > Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a
> > solution.
> > Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> > imagine,
> > how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> > barbarian
> > in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> >
> >> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired
> >> participating here
> >
> > Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want
> > to
> > unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point
> > out, that
> > if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by
> > yourself
> > first.
> >
> >> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is
> >> false-positive
> > feedback, when you
> >> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> >
> > Absolutely. +1000.
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> >>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> >>>
> >>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme
> >>> unfriendliness is
> >> only
> >>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that
> >>> people are
> >>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general.
> >>> How can we
> >>> avoid that?
> >>
> >> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that
> >> we have
> >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >> disagreeing
> >> with each other.
> >>
> >> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll
> >> leave the
> >> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good
> >> suggestions about
> >> our culture. How can I improve that?
> >>
> >>
> >>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> >>
> >> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> >> excuses
> >> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> >> this out
> >> in my original message, and now we already have a number of
> >> messages on
> >> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s
> >> the kind
> >> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> ermouth
> >>>
> >>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> >>>>
> >>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how
> >>>> and why
> >>>> this is supposed to work?”
> >>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> >>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to
> >>>> say
> >> ‘but’,
> >>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid
> >>>> that?”
> >>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other,
> >>>> that we
> >> have
> >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >>>> disagreeing
> >>>> with each other.”
> >>>>
> >>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> >>>>> “Starting
> >> post
> >>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> >>>>> contributors
> >>>>> with this.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to
> >>>>> subscribe, but
> >> to
> >>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more
> >>>>> uncomfortable,
> >> then
> >>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions
> >>>>> undiscussed –
> >>>> nobody
> >>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Hi Jan
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt
> >>>>>>> <ja...@apache.org>
> >> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks
> >>>>>>>> like that
> >> we
> >>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> >>>>>>> styles
> >>>>>>> and how they are different?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our
> >>>>>> previous
> >>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on
> >>>>>> your
> >>>> example
> >>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean
> >>>>>> to
> >>>> re-play
> >>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> >>>>>> anyone in
> >>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “But…”-style:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses
> >>>>>> that.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “…”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> >>>>>> leaves
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> project>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We
> >>>>>> still have
> >>>> the
> >>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@
> >>>>>> mailing list
> >>>> for
> >>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> >>>>>> inviting a
> >>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> >>>>>> even
> >> more
> >>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> >>>>>> mailing
> >>>> list
> >>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with,
> >>>>>> maybe we
> >>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> >>>> efficient,
> >>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place,
> >>>>>> so
> >>>> cutting
> >>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> >>>>>> purpose
> >> as
> >>>> a
> >>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> >>>>>> contributors
> >>>> is
> >>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success.
> >>>>>> It makes
> >>>> sure
> >>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse
> >>>>>> ideas
> >> making
> >>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> >> Long-term,
> >>>> it
> >>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks,
> >>>>>> but it
> >> does
> >>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project
> >>>>>> right
> >>>> after,
> >>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> >>>>>> simply
> >>>> burned
> >>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>
> >>
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>.
Hello!
I woke up today, with the first thing on my todo list: submit a ticket to create a design@ML account. (Sry Kxepal!)
But then, I did not expect all the responses :)
It is a pleasant surprise for one of my proposal to generate so many emails.
It means that the community is *active*, and that people are passionate and feel empowered enough to have an opinion to make it a better place. And good ideas are always welcome remember?
I really like that everyone is welcome to voice their opinions and thoughts on the mailing list.
No one is a mind reader. But reading gives us a secret power to reading thoughts.
The mailing list gives me a searchable, and easy way to keep up with everything, it is nearly real-time,
but can also work async, and it also gives people the chance to formulate their thoughts a bit better than IRC.
I thought that a design@ML would be best for this,
HOWEVER, now after reading the discussion, I have changed my mind, and now believe that that hosting design discussions for designers would be better on a platform like medium.com, or at least someplace where we can host screenshots of our ideas.
That is a good idea! I am going to submit a proposal to do that instead of the mailing list idea.
It will *SHOW* we are really trying to make the community a welcome place for designers,
in their own language, without the overhead of a ML.
Lets move our platform-for-design-for-CouchDB discussion stuff there.
The other stuff:
- You guys are arguing over what will make the CouchDB community better, the MOST. This is a bit silly, but makes me smile, and my heart swell with pride and happiness that everyone is on-board and trying making this better.
- All of this is hard to do.
- I think everyone is doing a good job.
Michelle
PS. ermouth: I am sorry Cloudant broke somethings of yours. We were trying to make things safer. We did not mean to intentionally break anything.
> On Sep 14, 2015, at 9:22 AM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
>> that we have the best of the project in mind
>
> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> current approach – he is right.
>
> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely, he
> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely ortogonal
> to trust.
>
> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing barbarian
> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
>
>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here
>
> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out, that
> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> first.
>
>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> feedback, when you
>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
>
> Absolutely. +1000.
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
>>>
>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
>> only
>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we
>>> avoid that?
>>
>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
>> with each other.
>>
>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions about
>> our culture. How can I improve that?
>>
>>
>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
>>
>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy excuses
>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this out
>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the kind
>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> ermouth
>>>
>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
>>>>
>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why
>>>> this is supposed to work?”
>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
>> ‘but’,
>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
>> have
>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
>>>> with each other.”
>>>>
>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting
>> post
>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
>>>>> with this.
>>>>>
>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but
>> to
>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
>> then
>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>>>>>
>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
>>>> nobody
>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi Jan
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that
>> we
>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
>>>>>>> and how they are different?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
>>>> example
>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
>>>> re-play
>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “But…”-style:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “…”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves
>>>> the
>>>>>> project>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have
>>>> the
>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list
>>>> for
>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even
>> more
>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing
>>>> list
>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
>>>> efficient,
>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
>>>> cutting
>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose
>> as
>>>> a
>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors
>>>> is
>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes
>>>> sure
>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
>> making
>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
>> Long-term,
>>>> it
>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
>> does
>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
>>>> after,
>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
>>>> burned
>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by lenz <no...@gmail.com>.
I am normally only reading here and write really rarely but this discussion
is super interesting for me. I work with a lot of teams, many of them early
stage startups, teams that don't know each other very well and are super
motivated but have no clear structure yet on how to work together on a
problem. Many of the points discussed here are things I see regularly.
A game I use often to get teams through stalling discussions is a modified
version of roman voting. Thumbs up for "i am on bard with this" thumb
sideways for "I am not sold but have nothing better" and thumb down for
"Not on board and here is a better idea". The rules are, you can't be
against anything without a better idea. The reasoning behind this is that a
simple "No" is nothing that can be acted on, it is a stalling and
de-motivating statement. A "No but how about this" is a discussion that can
continue. A "No, but don't have anything better" means you are on board
with the current proposal and support it till there is a better one.
I don't say that this is the best way to solve stalling discussions but it
certainly helps to unstuck teams and get them moving again. It also
encourages a discussion style that helps to progress with ideas and pick
the best idea at the time, knowing that it will evolve but the next
iteration will have all the learnings from the previous one.
Applying it to this discussion a possible flow could have looked like this:
A: "How about a design@ML"
B: "No, www@ML did not work in the past but how about a medium blog"
C: "interesting point, is www@ and design@ really the same crowd? can we
make the assumption that it will have the same fate?"
A: "really like the medium idea, who thinks this is a better idea than the
design@"
...
The important bit in the second line is the counter proposal, not just a
"this did not work in the past so we should not do it".
cheers
Lenz
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 11:57 AM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I find "yes-and" to be a fun and relaxed style
>
> I must admit, I also find it very funny sometimes ) Proposed ‘Yes, and’ as
> enforced opening phrase for comments, see sibling thread. We can even allow
> authors to select comments policy, like ‘Allow any comments’, ‘Force all
> comments start with Yes, and’ – and so on.
>
> It can be really funny, and I clearly see UI for it.
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-15 2:49 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
>
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:49 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > > Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> > right
> > > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying
> ‘Yes’
> > > each time )
> > >
> >
> > :)
> >
> > Cool. Well, anyway, I find "yes-and" to be a fun and relaxed style. The
> fun
> > bit is important too, since, this is a volunteer effort.
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> I find "yes-and" to be a fun and relaxed style
I must admit, I also find it very funny sometimes ) Proposed ‘Yes, and’ as
enforced opening phrase for comments, see sibling thread. We can even allow
authors to select comments policy, like ‘Allow any comments’, ‘Force all
comments start with Yes, and’ – and so on.
It can be really funny, and I clearly see UI for it.
ermouth
2015-09-15 2:49 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:49 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> >
> > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> right
> > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
> > each time )
> >
>
> :)
>
> Cool. Well, anyway, I find "yes-and" to be a fun and relaxed style. The fun
> bit is important too, since, this is a volunteer effort.
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 11:49 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>
> Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at right
> moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
> each time )
>
:)
Cool. Well, anyway, I find "yes-and" to be a fun and relaxed style. The fun
bit is important too, since, this is a volunteer effort.
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
+1 Jason :)
Especially: someone wrote it in their spare time, spent the whole night on
it, and feels really miserable the day after.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 1:08 PM, Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Thanks, Jan.
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > 3. if you disagree with employing a “Yes, and…”-style in the CouchDB
> > community, make a counter proposal that you think gets us to a better
> > culture.
> >
>
> TL;DR = We are doing that; but what is "better"? To me, it means fun and
> enjoyable.
>
> ## Long version
>
> I think everybody is indeed making proposals for better culture. However,
> it sounds to me like we never really defined "better" (at least in this
> thread). Different (successful) communities can make different conclusions
> about that.
>
> The code of conduct is a rough guide of "good" culture. It sets the minimum
> standard, but not the maximum
>
> Apache CouchDB is not a corporate, professional product; it is an open
> source, volunteer project. It should *not* meet professional standards, but
> it should rather meet fun standards. In other words, if it feels like a
> job, a slog, to work on CouchDB, then that's just no fun. At its best,
> CouchDB is fun and relaxed.
>
> I mean: let's just step back and look at CouchDB for a moment. Like, what
> are we even talking about? We have embedded JavaScript inside of Erlang,
> and the whole thing is a web server. That is on its face just completely
> bonkers. That's great! It's beautiful! But it's bonkers, no question. I
> would enjoy a community that is similarly light-hearted and leisurely.
>
> When I read a post on the list, I pretend somebody wrote it in their spare
> time, and my own objective when engaging them is to try to make them feel
> like it was *leisure* time well-spent.
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
Thanks, Jan.
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 5:18 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> 3. if you disagree with employing a “Yes, and…”-style in the CouchDB
> community, make a counter proposal that you think gets us to a better
> culture.
>
TL;DR = We are doing that; but what is "better"? To me, it means fun and
enjoyable.
## Long version
I think everybody is indeed making proposals for better culture. However,
it sounds to me like we never really defined "better" (at least in this
thread). Different (successful) communities can make different conclusions
about that.
The code of conduct is a rough guide of "good" culture. It sets the minimum
standard, but not the maximum
Apache CouchDB is not a corporate, professional product; it is an open
source, volunteer project. It should *not* meet professional standards, but
it should rather meet fun standards. In other words, if it feels like a
job, a slog, to work on CouchDB, then that's just no fun. At its best,
CouchDB is fun and relaxed.
I mean: let's just step back and look at CouchDB for a moment. Like, what
are we even talking about? We have embedded JavaScript inside of Erlang,
and the whole thing is a web server. That is on its face just completely
bonkers. That's great! It's beautiful! But it's bonkers, no question. I
would enjoy a community that is similarly light-hearted and leisurely.
When I read a post on the list, I pretend somebody wrote it in their spare
time, and my own objective when engaging them is to try to make them feel
like it was *leisure* time well-spent.
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Hi Jan,
could you share the conclusion on your #1?
I would guess #1 and #3 need to work together since it is a bit hard to have one rule for dealing with bad ideas and another for dealing with good ideas.
johs
> On 15. sep. 2015, at 12.21, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> 1. we already know how to deal with bad ideas in a friendly manner, completely ignore this aspect of the discussion.
>>
>> 2. don’t try to find a theoretical loophole in the “Yes, and…”-style (or alternative proposals) just to show your intellectual prowess.
>>
>> 3. if you disagree with employing a “Yes, and…”-style in the CouchDB community, make a counter proposal that you think gets us to a better culture.
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 15 Sep 2015, at 12:18, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Thanks all for participating, let’s keep going, I just want to put up a new ruls for this thread:
* new rules
>
> 1. we already know how to deal with bad ideas in a friendly manner, completely ignore this aspect of the discussion.
>
> 2. don’t try to find a theoretical loophole in the “Yes, and…”-style (or alternative proposals) just to show your intellectual prowess.
>
> 3. if you disagree with employing a “Yes, and…”-style in the CouchDB community, make a counter proposal that you think gets us to a better culture.
>
> Thanks!
> Jan
> --
>
>
>> On 15 Sep 2015, at 11:24, Klaus Trainer <kl...@posteo.de> wrote:
>>
>>>> feedback you get is something like "that won't work" and then you are
>>>> suddenly in the position where you have to defend the idea
>>>
>>> Then do defend.
>>>
>>> Idea that breaks on first aside doubt or uncomfortable question/comment
>>> worth even less then zero. Just because it have taken resources to think it
>>> (hopefully) and to read it, but gave no fruits.
>>>
>>> If you received ‘it won‘t work, because’ and have nothing to answer – it‘s
>>> just time to rethink idea. Really.
>>>
>>> If you received uncozy ‘it won‘t work’ (or tldr) from person who definitely
>>> doesn‘t want to troll you – well, may be idea _really_ was too raw (or text
>>> was too long for medium chosen)? May be person who declined idea has wide
>>> background on topic, and accidentally assume all other also have? Why not
>>> to ask?
>>>
>>> Please, just take it bit easier. Things like tldr are not very encouraging,
>>> but they do not worth any serious reaction )
>>
>> Please stop trolling.
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Thanks all for participating, let’s keep going, I just want to put up a new ruls for this thread:
1. we already know how to deal with bad ideas in a friendly manner, completely ignore this aspect of the discussion.
2. don’t try to find a theoretical loophole in the “Yes, and…”-style (or alternative proposals) just to show your intellectual prowess.
3. if you disagree with employing a “Yes, and…”-style in the CouchDB community, make a counter proposal that you think gets us to a better culture.
Thanks!
Jan
--
> On 15 Sep 2015, at 11:24, Klaus Trainer <kl...@posteo.de> wrote:
>
>>> feedback you get is something like "that won't work" and then you are
>>> suddenly in the position where you have to defend the idea
>>
>> Then do defend.
>>
>> Idea that breaks on first aside doubt or uncomfortable question/comment
>> worth even less then zero. Just because it have taken resources to think it
>> (hopefully) and to read it, but gave no fruits.
>>
>> If you received ‘it won‘t work, because’ and have nothing to answer – it‘s
>> just time to rethink idea. Really.
>>
>> If you received uncozy ‘it won‘t work’ (or tldr) from person who definitely
>> doesn‘t want to troll you – well, may be idea _really_ was too raw (or text
>> was too long for medium chosen)? May be person who declined idea has wide
>> background on topic, and accidentally assume all other also have? Why not
>> to ask?
>>
>> Please, just take it bit easier. Things like tldr are not very encouraging,
>> but they do not worth any serious reaction )
>
> Please stop trolling.
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Klaus Trainer <kl...@posteo.de>.
>> feedback you get is something like "that won't work" and then you are
>> suddenly in the position where you have to defend the idea
>
> Then do defend.
>
> Idea that breaks on first aside doubt or uncomfortable question/comment
> worth even less then zero. Just because it have taken resources to think it
> (hopefully) and to read it, but gave no fruits.
>
> If you received ‘it won‘t work, because’ and have nothing to answer – it‘s
> just time to rethink idea. Really.
>
> If you received uncozy ‘it won‘t work’ (or tldr) from person who definitely
> doesn‘t want to troll you – well, may be idea _really_ was too raw (or text
> was too long for medium chosen)? May be person who declined idea has wide
> background on topic, and accidentally assume all other also have? Why not
> to ask?
>
> Please, just take it bit easier. Things like tldr are not very encouraging,
> but they do not worth any serious reaction )
Please stop trolling.
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 19:17, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I already know the answer :)
>
> I think I also know, but I‘m not sure. Many devs tend to be introverts and
> say nothing until asked explicitly. Direct question can uncover a lot of
> interesting things.
I’m in touch with a lot of end-users as part of my day-work, I think I have
a representative sample here :)
In general, I’d be happy to move to a questionnaire-based approach, but I think we can skip that for this one :)
> Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that thread?
>
> Mea culpa, I read that thread thoroughly just today, after Jason put it as
> an example.
Ah, no worries :)
Best
Jan
--
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 19:58 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>>>
>>> Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
>> right
>>> moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
>>> each time )
>>>
>>>> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
>>>
>>> As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does
>>> anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
>> dropped.
>>
>> I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
>> thread?
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>>
>>> ermouth
>>>
>>> 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>>>>
>>>> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
>>>> conversation, and also having fun!
>>>>
>>>> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or
>> the
>>>> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
>> "Sure!"
>>>> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
>>>> will be.
>>>>
>>>> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
>> "yes-and"
>>>> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes
>> its
>>>> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
>>>> "Yes, let's throw it out."
>>>>
>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
>>>>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
>>>>>
>>>>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
>>>>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
>>>>> current approach – he is right.
>>>>>
>>>>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
>> Surely,
>>>> he
>>>>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
>>>> ortogonal
>>>>> to trust.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
>>>>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
>> imagine,
>>>>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
>>>> barbarian
>>>>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
>>>>>
>>>>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
>>>> here
>>>>>
>>>>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
>>>>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
>>>> that
>>>>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
>>>>> first.
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
>>>>> feedback, when you
>>>>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
>>>>>
>>>>> Absolutely. +1000.
>>>>>
>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
>>>>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
>>>>>> only
>>>>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
>>>> are
>>>>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
>>>> can
>>>>> we
>>>>>>> avoid that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
>>>> have
>>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
>>>> disagreeing
>>>>>> with each other.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave
>> the
>>>>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
>>>> about
>>>>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
>>>>> excuses
>>>>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
>> this
>>>>> out
>>>>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages
>> on
>>>>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
>>>>> kind
>>>>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
>>>>> why
>>>>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
>>>>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
>>>>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
>>>>>> ‘but’,
>>>>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
>>>>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
>>>>> disagreeing
>>>>>>>> with each other.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
>>>> “Starting
>>>>>> post
>>>>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>>>> with this.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
>>>> but
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
>>>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
>>>>> that
>>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
>>>>> styles
>>>>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>>>>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
>>>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
>>>>>>>> re-play
>>>>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
>>>> anyone
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “…”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
>>>>> leaves
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> project>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
>>>>> list
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
>>>>> inviting a
>>>>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
>>>> even
>>>>>> more
>>>>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
>>>>> mailing
>>>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
>>>>>>>> efficient,
>>>>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
>>>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
>>>> purpose
>>>>>> as
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
>>>>> contributors
>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
>>>>> makes
>>>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
>>>>>> making
>>>>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
>>>>>> Long-term,
>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
>>>>>> does
>>>>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
>>>>>>>> after,
>>>>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
>>>> simply
>>>>>>>> burned
>>>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> I already know the answer :)
I think I also know, but I‘m not sure. Many devs tend to be introverts and
say nothing until asked explicitly. Direct question can uncover a lot of
interesting things.
> Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that thread?
Mea culpa, I read that thread thoroughly just today, after Jason put it as
an example.
ermouth
2015-09-14 19:58 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
> > On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> >
> > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> right
> > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
> > each time )
> >
> >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
> >
> > As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does
> > anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
> dropped.
>
> I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
> thread?
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> >>
> >> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
> >> conversation, and also having fun!
> >>
> >> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or
> the
> >> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
> "Sure!"
> >> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
> >> will be.
> >>
> >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
> "yes-and"
> >> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes
> its
> >> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
> >> "Yes, let's throw it out."
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> >>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
> >>>
> >>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> >>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> >>> current approach – he is right.
> >>>
> >>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> Surely,
> >> he
> >>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> >> ortogonal
> >>> to trust.
> >>>
> >>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> >>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> imagine,
> >>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> >> barbarian
> >>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> >>>
> >>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> >> here
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> >>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
> >> that
> >>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> >>> first.
> >>>
> >>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> >>> feedback, when you
> >>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely. +1000.
> >>>
> >>> ermouth
> >>>
> >>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> >>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> >>>> only
> >>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
> >> are
> >>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
> >> can
> >>> we
> >>>>> avoid that?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> >> have
> >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >> disagreeing
> >>>> with each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave
> the
> >>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> >> about
> >>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> >>> excuses
> >>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> this
> >>> out
> >>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages
> on
> >>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
> >>> kind
> >>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
> >>> why
> >>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
> >>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> >>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> >>>> ‘but’,
> >>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> >>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> >>>> have
> >>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >>> disagreeing
> >>>>>> with each other.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> >> “Starting
> >>>> post
> >>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> >>> contributors
> >>>>>>> with this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
> >> but
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> >>>> then
> >>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> >>>>>> nobody
> >>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> >>> that
> >>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> >>> styles
> >>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> >>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> >>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> >>>>>> re-play
> >>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> >> anyone
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “…”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> >>> leaves
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> project>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> >>> have
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> >>> list
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> >>> inviting a
> >>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> >> even
> >>>> more
> >>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> >>> mailing
> >>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
> >>> we
> >>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> >>>>>> efficient,
> >>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> >>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> >> purpose
> >>>> as
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> >>> contributors
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> >>> makes
> >>>>>> sure
> >>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> >>>> making
> >>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> >>>> Long-term,
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> >>>> does
> >>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> >>>>>> after,
> >>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> >> simply
> >>>>>> burned
> >>>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> Btw. did you see the video? What do you think?
I saw it before. Speech is good, font might be faaaar better ) But I can
hardly co-ordinate it with current situation.
> feedback you get is something like "that won't work" and then you are
> suddenly in the position where you have to defend the idea
Then do defend.
Idea that breaks on first aside doubt or uncomfortable question/comment
worth even less then zero. Just because it have taken resources to think it
(hopefully) and to read it, but gave no fruits.
If you received ‘it won‘t work, because’ and have nothing to answer – it‘s
just time to rethink idea. Really.
If you received uncozy ‘it won‘t work’ (or tldr) from person who definitely
doesn‘t want to troll you – well, may be idea _really_ was too raw (or text
was too long for medium chosen)? May be person who declined idea has wide
background on topic, and accidentally assume all other also have? Why not
to ask?
Please, just take it bit easier. Things like tldr are not very encouraging,
but they do not worth any serious reaction )
ermouth
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
That was not was I was pointing out, please read my mail at [1] again, I
mentioned:
- making proposals _in general_ is hard and the feedback is not
encouraging, because of the way feedback is given
- feedback is sometimes not very constructive, and requires a few other
persons that step in to get feedback that you can work with
- i have gotten this type of feedback multiple times in the past in this
project and could imagine it makes it hard for people to start working with
us in such an environment
I also want to add that there is also nobody requesting from you to give
wrong feedback to a very bad idea. Nobody said that.
What actually happens regularly is that a good idea with good intentions
maybe has a small weakness how it could be realized, for example an idea
how we could improve CouchDB. What then happens is that the special type of
feedback you get is something like "that won't work" and then you are
suddenly in the position where you have to defend the idea (which has some
nits) in an _all or nothing way_.
This is the opposite to feedback that will let you refine the parts of your
idea that has issues immediately. But by getting feedback like "that is
impossible" or "that won't work" you often get into the position where you
have to defend the overall idea and your intention and that can feel quite
tedious.
I think we should aim to give feedback to ideas without the need of other
people stepping in to get a good result.
Btw. did you see the video? What do you think?
[1]
http://mail-archives.apache.org/mod_mbox/couchdb-dev/201509.mbox/%3CCAJ1bcfH93V8HypHBbPNzOx1T7bN-iWBts2SZor8X1oSmq1DPLA%40mail.gmail.com%3E
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:56 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > a more positive way of giving feedback
>
> Ok, lets build a tree to compare sugar floods with reality )
>
> 1. Michelle proposed design@ ML, good intention – but no realistic
> plan.
> 1. Everybody agree, ML created, and dies right after birth for well seen
> reasons.
> 2. Someone says ‘We already have www@, that is abandoned’ – and
> discussion starts.
> 2. Majority insists idea is good as is – but still no plan or prognosis
> on obstacles. Also majority begin to depress the only person, who dared
> to
> express doubts vocally. Pressure is not direct – this community is
> highly
> civilized – but collectively mixing in some aside principles and rules
> is
> highly effective way to isolate and fade out any opinion.
> 1. Everybody (as well as person, who initially criticized) agrees with
> majority, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen
> reasons.
> 2. Someone other enumerates very low level problems directly, saying
> ‘ML is irrelevant, because it lacks this, that and forth’.
> 3. Majority still insists idea is good and increase pressure using aside
> principles and rules.
> 1. Everybody agrees, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen
> reasons.
> 2. Someone begin to think, how to workaround possible obstacles and
> shows alternatives.
>
> You can by yourself choose, which steps and approach might produce death of
> idea before it was born, and which steps made idea stronger.
>
> I played school theater zillion years ago, and know, that ‘yes-and’ is good
> for solving on-stage stalls. Nothing for that zillions years after proved
> me, that restricted lexical patterns are good for improving real things )
>
> Time to time negative feedback is a key for any open system‘s stability
> regulation and sustainable grow. Sugar floods only good when you make jam.
> It‘s tasty, surely, but it can‘t grow, because sugar is conservant.
>
> BR
>
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 20:35 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
>
> > Oh wow, so much feedback!
> >
> > I think Jason and Jan (and also me with my initial post) are trying to
> > advocate a more positive way of giving feedback.
> >
> > I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
> > interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0
> >
> > I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
> > building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
> >
> >
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > > >
> > > > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> > > right
> > > > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying
> > ‘Yes’
> > > > each time )
> > > >
> > > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
> > > >
> > > > As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them
> > does
> > > > anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
> > > dropped.
> > >
> > > I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in
> that
> > > thread?
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Jan
> > > --
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ermouth
> > > >
> > > > 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> > > >
> > > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > > >>
> > > >> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of
> > the
> > > >> conversation, and also having fun!
> > > >>
> > > >> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter,
> > or
> > > the
> > > >> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
> > > "Sure!"
> > > >> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected
> > consequences
> > > >> will be.
> > > >>
> > > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
> > > "yes-and"
> > > >> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer
> > fixes
> > > its
> > > >> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively
> answered:
> > > >> "Yes, let's throw it out."
> > > >>
> > > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>
> > > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > > >>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
> > > >>>
> > > >>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts
> > are
> > > >>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@
> > with
> > > >>> current approach – he is right.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> > > Surely,
> > > >> he
> > > >>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> > > >> ortogonal
> > > >>> to trust.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a
> > solution.
> > > >>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> > > imagine,
> > > >>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> > > >> barbarian
> > > >>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired
> participating
> > > >> here
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want
> to
> > > >>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point
> > out,
> > > >> that
> > > >>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by
> > yourself
> > > >>> first.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is
> false-positive
> > > >>> feedback, when you
> > > >>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Absolutely. +1000.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ermouth
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > > >>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme
> unfriendliness
> > is
> > > >>>> only
> > > >>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that
> people
> > > >> are
> > > >>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general.
> How
> > > >> can
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>> avoid that?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that
> we
> > > >> have
> > > >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > > >> disagreeing
> > > >>>> with each other.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll
> leave
> > > the
> > > >>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good
> suggestions
> > > >> about
> > > >>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> > > >>> excuses
> > > >>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> > > this
> > > >>> out
> > > >>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of
> messages
> > > on
> > > >>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s
> > the
> > > >>> kind
> > > >>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Best
> > > >>>> Jan
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> ermouth
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how
> > and
> > > >>> why
> > > >>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
> > > >>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > > >>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to
> say
> > > >>>> ‘but’,
> > > >>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid
> that?”
> > > >>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other,
> that
> > we
> > > >>>> have
> > > >>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > > >>> disagreeing
> > > >>>>>> with each other.”
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> Best
> > > >>>>>> Jan
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> > > >> “Starting
> > > >>>> post
> > > >>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> > > >>> contributors
> > > >>>>>>> with this.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to
> subscribe,
> > > >> but
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more
> > uncomfortable,
> > > >>>> then
> > > >>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions
> > undiscussed –
> > > >>>>>> nobody
> > > >>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> ermouth
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kxepal@gmail.com
> >
> > > >>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <
> jan@apache.org
> > >
> > > >>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks
> like
> > > >>> that
> > > >>>> we
> > > >>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> > > >>> styles
> > > >>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our
> previous
> > > >>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on
> > your
> > > >>>>>> example
> > > >>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean
> > to
> > > >>>>>> re-play
> > > >>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> > > >> anyone
> > > >>> in
> > > >>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses
> that.”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “…”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> > > >>> leaves
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> project>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We
> still
> > > >>> have
> > > >>>>>> the
> > > >>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@
> mailing
> > > >>> list
> > > >>>>>> for
> > > >>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> > > >>> inviting a
> > > >>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> > > >> even
> > > >>>> more
> > > >>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> > > >>> mailing
> > > >>>>>> list
> > > >>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with,
> > maybe
> > > >>> we
> > > >>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> > > >>>>>> efficient,
> > > >>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place,
> > so
> > > >>>>>> cutting
> > > >>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> > > >> purpose
> > > >>>> as
> > > >>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> > > >>> contributors
> > > >>>>>> is
> > > >>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success.
> It
> > > >>> makes
> > > >>>>>> sure
> > > >>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse
> > ideas
> > > >>>> making
> > > >>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > > >>>> Long-term,
> > > >>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks,
> but
> > it
> > > >>>> does
> > > >>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project
> > right
> > > >>>>>> after,
> > > >>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> > > >> simply
> > > >>>>>> burned
> > > >>>>>>>> out.
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> Best
> > > >>>>>>>> Jan
> > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > >>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> --
> > > >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> a more positive way of giving feedback
Ok, lets build a tree to compare sugar floods with reality )
1. Michelle proposed design@ ML, good intention – but no realistic plan.
1. Everybody agree, ML created, and dies right after birth for well seen
reasons.
2. Someone says ‘We already have www@, that is abandoned’ – and
discussion starts.
2. Majority insists idea is good as is – but still no plan or prognosis
on obstacles. Also majority begin to depress the only person, who dared to
express doubts vocally. Pressure is not direct – this community is highly
civilized – but collectively mixing in some aside principles and rules is
highly effective way to isolate and fade out any opinion.
1. Everybody (as well as person, who initially criticized) agrees with
majority, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen reasons.
2. Someone other enumerates very low level problems directly, saying
‘ML is irrelevant, because it lacks this, that and forth’.
3. Majority still insists idea is good and increase pressure using aside
principles and rules.
1. Everybody agrees, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen
reasons.
2. Someone begin to think, how to workaround possible obstacles and
shows alternatives.
You can by yourself choose, which steps and approach might produce death of
idea before it was born, and which steps made idea stronger.
I played school theater zillion years ago, and know, that ‘yes-and’ is good
for solving on-stage stalls. Nothing for that zillions years after proved
me, that restricted lexical patterns are good for improving real things )
Time to time negative feedback is a key for any open system‘s stability
regulation and sustainable grow. Sugar floods only good when you make jam.
It‘s tasty, surely, but it can‘t grow, because sugar is conservant.
BR
ermouth
2015-09-14 20:35 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>:
> Oh wow, so much feedback!
>
> I think Jason and Jan (and also me with my initial post) are trying to
> advocate a more positive way of giving feedback.
>
> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
> interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0
>
> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> > right
> > > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying
> ‘Yes’
> > > each time )
> > >
> > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
> > >
> > > As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them
> does
> > > anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
> > dropped.
> >
> > I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
> > thread?
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> > >
> > > ermouth
> > >
> > > 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> > >
> > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > >>
> > >> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of
> the
> > >> conversation, and also having fun!
> > >>
> > >> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter,
> or
> > the
> > >> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
> > "Sure!"
> > >> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected
> consequences
> > >> will be.
> > >>
> > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
> > "yes-and"
> > >> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer
> fixes
> > its
> > >> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
> > >> "Yes, let's throw it out."
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > >>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
> > >>>
> > >>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts
> are
> > >>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@
> with
> > >>> current approach – he is right.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> > Surely,
> > >> he
> > >>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> > >> ortogonal
> > >>> to trust.
> > >>>
> > >>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a
> solution.
> > >>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> > imagine,
> > >>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> > >> barbarian
> > >>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> > >> here
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> > >>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point
> out,
> > >> that
> > >>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by
> yourself
> > >>> first.
> > >>>
> > >>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> > >>> feedback, when you
> > >>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> > >>>
> > >>> Absolutely. +1000.
> > >>>
> > >>> ermouth
> > >>>
> > >>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > >>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness
> is
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
> > >> are
> > >>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
> > >> can
> > >>> we
> > >>>>> avoid that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> > >> have
> > >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >> disagreeing
> > >>>> with each other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave
> > the
> > >>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> > >> about
> > >>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> > >>> excuses
> > >>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> > this
> > >>> out
> > >>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages
> > on
> > >>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s
> the
> > >>> kind
> > >>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best
> > >>>> Jan
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how
> and
> > >>> why
> > >>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
> > >>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > >>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> > >>>> ‘but’,
> > >>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> > >>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that
> we
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >>> disagreeing
> > >>>>>> with each other.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> > >> “Starting
> > >>>> post
> > >>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> > >>> contributors
> > >>>>>>> with this.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
> > >> but
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more
> uncomfortable,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions
> undiscussed –
> > >>>>>> nobody
> > >>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <jan@apache.org
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> > >>> that
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> > >>> styles
> > >>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> > >>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on
> your
> > >>>>>> example
> > >>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean
> to
> > >>>>>> re-play
> > >>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> > >> anyone
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “…”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> > >>> leaves
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> project>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> > >>> have
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> > >>> list
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> > >>> inviting a
> > >>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> > >> even
> > >>>> more
> > >>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> > >>> mailing
> > >>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with,
> maybe
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> > >>>>>> efficient,
> > >>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place,
> so
> > >>>>>> cutting
> > >>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> > >> purpose
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> > >>> contributors
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> > >>> makes
> > >>>>>> sure
> > >>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse
> ideas
> > >>>> making
> > >>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > >>>> Long-term,
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but
> it
> > >>>> does
> > >>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project
> right
> > >>>>>> after,
> > >>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> > >> simply
> > >>>>>> burned
> > >>>>>>>> out.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Thanks Robert,
will study)
What I discovered so far is that philosophy papers on OSS is very har to find. It is as if OSS would be an insulated human space and had its own philosophical basis.
I would expect that the various streams of philosophy and ideology that tend to govern our thinking affects OSS too, while there doesn't seem to be much studies on this from the philosophy side (unlike law, eceonomics and many other diciplines).
About my comments on conflict, I DO believe in resolving conflicts (not enforcing them), but i think it is folly to ignore or avoid them totally.
My comment was towards the NVC ideology that I did not know of before now. It looked like focusing on avoiding conflict to facilitate a transaction (you get what you need and I get what I need).
Looks good for running workshop or marriage counseling, but would not get a skyscraper built, where you need to develop respect for each other's strength and also for some objective truth (like the steelworker may know how to mount the steel beam, but cannot be at liberty to decide if and where it should be mounted, since neither the steelworker or structural engineer has any power over gravity).
Juggling these metaphors might not help us, what I wanted to say was that found the video interesting, but the NVC philosophy did not pass my crap filter.
It created an interest to check if any paper has been written about philosophies (scholarly ones) in OSS development.
If I were a philosophy student looking for a PhD theme now, "Philosophies and their impact on OSS product quality" would be a candidate.
I realize that product quality is not the only outcome of OSS development (learning, sense of accomplishment and peer recognition and others might be as important) and thus there are many ways to define success for a OSS community.
What I am looking for is "what thinking and culture will make the OSS community turn out a superior product".
Johs
> On 16. sep. 2015, at 03.33, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>
> Hi Johs,
>
> there is some more material I know of which completes the talk from Isaac.
>
> - A talk which tries to take a look what motivates people in Open Source
> and what happens when at some point some people are paid to do certain
> tasks in the project [1]
>
> - The book "Producing Open Source Software", written by the author of our
> neighbors at the ASF that maintain the svn project - which was also part of
> Isaacs talk as further reference [2]
>
> - Parts of "Natalia Berdys: The web experience in the autistic spectrum"
> [3]
>
> In the end it is all about input and output. You throw things into your
> mail, that get's read by real people. Real people are behind that screen,
> and these people have feelings. These people get feelings when they read
> your response.
>
> I am not sure what you mean by avoiding conflict or enforcing conflict to
> build a skyscraper. I think you can build a good skyscraper or also a
> smaller project if your group is able to give proper feedback. If your
> group is not able to give proper feedback to everyone on a regular basis
> building everything gets harder - if not impossible.
>
>
> [1]
> http://bofh.nikhef.nl/events/FOSDEM//2012/maintracks/k.1.105/Caret_and_Stick.webm
> [2] http://producingoss.com/
> [3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=7nnAYB1mb9E
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
>
>> Robert,
>>
>> the video that you recommended caught my interest and I saw the whole
>> thing trough again and took a closer into the philosophy behind it. The NVC
>> ideology didn't pass my standards, I am afraid.
>> The danger of totally abandoning the concept of objective truth is that
>> you end up with everybody's feelings as the only sacred thing in this world.
>> To avoid conflict to maximize your transaction with people (you get what
>> you need and I get what I need) can be good in a short-term business
>> relation, but not if you try to build a good machine or sky scraper.
>>
>> Would be interesting to know if anyone know of a paper that deals with the
>> difference in values and beliefs in the best OSS teams.
>>
>> Johs
>>
>>
>>
>>> On 15. sep. 2015, at 02.48, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for this video, Robert
>>> Very interesting, any other input like this that captures knowhow about
>> how to make OSS communities productive and compassionate would be highly
>> appreciated
>>>
>>> Johs
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 14. sep. 2015, at 19.35, Robert Kowalski <rok@kowalski.gd <mailto:
>> rok@kowalski.gd>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
>>>> interactions in communities:
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0 <
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0>
>>>>
>>>> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
>>>> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
>>>
>>
>>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
Hi Johs,
there is some more material I know of which completes the talk from Isaac.
- A talk which tries to take a look what motivates people in Open Source
and what happens when at some point some people are paid to do certain
tasks in the project [1]
- The book "Producing Open Source Software", written by the author of our
neighbors at the ASF that maintain the svn project - which was also part of
Isaacs talk as further reference [2]
- Parts of "Natalia Berdys: The web experience in the autistic spectrum"
[3]
In the end it is all about input and output. You throw things into your
mail, that get's read by real people. Real people are behind that screen,
and these people have feelings. These people get feelings when they read
your response.
I am not sure what you mean by avoiding conflict or enforcing conflict to
build a skyscraper. I think you can build a good skyscraper or also a
smaller project if your group is able to give proper feedback. If your
group is not able to give proper feedback to everyone on a regular basis
building everything gets harder - if not impossible.
[1]
http://bofh.nikhef.nl/events/FOSDEM//2012/maintracks/k.1.105/Caret_and_Stick.webm
[2] http://producingoss.com/
[3] https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=2&v=7nnAYB1mb9E
On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 7:37 PM, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
> Robert,
>
> the video that you recommended caught my interest and I saw the whole
> thing trough again and took a closer into the philosophy behind it. The NVC
> ideology didn't pass my standards, I am afraid.
> The danger of totally abandoning the concept of objective truth is that
> you end up with everybody's feelings as the only sacred thing in this world.
> To avoid conflict to maximize your transaction with people (you get what
> you need and I get what I need) can be good in a short-term business
> relation, but not if you try to build a good machine or sky scraper.
>
> Would be interesting to know if anyone know of a paper that deals with the
> difference in values and beliefs in the best OSS teams.
>
> Johs
>
>
>
> > On 15. sep. 2015, at 02.48, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks for this video, Robert
> > Very interesting, any other input like this that captures knowhow about
> how to make OSS communities productive and compassionate would be highly
> appreciated
> >
> > Johs
> >
> >
> >> On 14. sep. 2015, at 19.35, Robert Kowalski <rok@kowalski.gd <mailto:
> rok@kowalski.gd>> wrote:
> >>
> >> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
> >> interactions in communities:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0 <
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0>
> >>
> >> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
> >> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
> >
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Robert,
the video that you recommended caught my interest and I saw the whole thing trough again and took a closer into the philosophy behind it. The NVC ideology didn't pass my standards, I am afraid.
The danger of totally abandoning the concept of objective truth is that you end up with everybody's feelings as the only sacred thing in this world.
To avoid conflict to maximize your transaction with people (you get what you need and I get what I need) can be good in a short-term business relation, but not if you try to build a good machine or sky scraper.
Would be interesting to know if anyone know of a paper that deals with the difference in values and beliefs in the best OSS teams.
Johs
> On 15. sep. 2015, at 02.48, Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks for this video, Robert
> Very interesting, any other input like this that captures knowhow about how to make OSS communities productive and compassionate would be highly appreciated
>
> Johs
>
>
>> On 14. sep. 2015, at 19.35, Robert Kowalski <rok@kowalski.gd <ma...@kowalski.gd>> wrote:
>>
>> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
>> interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0>
>>
>> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
>> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Johs Ensby <jo...@b2w.com>.
Thanks for this video, Robert
Very interesting, any other input like this that captures knowhow about how to make OSS communities productive and compassionate would be highly appreciated
Johs
> On 14. sep. 2015, at 19.35, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>
> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
> interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0 <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0>
>
> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
Oh wow, so much feedback!
I think Jason and Jan (and also me with my initial post) are trying to
advocate a more positive way of giving feedback.
I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0
I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> >
> > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> right
> > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
> > each time )
> >
> >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
> >
> > As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does
> > anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
> dropped.
>
> I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
> thread?
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> >>
> >> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
> >> conversation, and also having fun!
> >>
> >> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or
> the
> >> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
> "Sure!"
> >> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
> >> will be.
> >>
> >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
> "yes-and"
> >> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes
> its
> >> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
> >> "Yes, let's throw it out."
> >>
> >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> >>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
> >>>
> >>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> >>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> >>> current approach – he is right.
> >>>
> >>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> Surely,
> >> he
> >>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> >> ortogonal
> >>> to trust.
> >>>
> >>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> >>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> imagine,
> >>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> >> barbarian
> >>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> >>>
> >>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> >> here
> >>>
> >>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> >>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
> >> that
> >>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> >>> first.
> >>>
> >>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> >>> feedback, when you
> >>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> >>>
> >>> Absolutely. +1000.
> >>>
> >>> ermouth
> >>>
> >>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> >>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> >>>> only
> >>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
> >> are
> >>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
> >> can
> >>> we
> >>>>> avoid that?
> >>>>
> >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> >> have
> >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >> disagreeing
> >>>> with each other.
> >>>>
> >>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave
> the
> >>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> >> about
> >>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> >>>>
> >>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> >>> excuses
> >>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> this
> >>> out
> >>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages
> on
> >>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
> >>> kind
> >>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>
> >>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
> >>> why
> >>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
> >>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> >>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> >>>> ‘but’,
> >>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> >>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> >>>> have
> >>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> >>> disagreeing
> >>>>>> with each other.”
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Best
> >>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> >> “Starting
> >>>> post
> >>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> >>> contributors
> >>>>>>> with this.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
> >> but
> >>>> to
> >>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> >>>> then
> >>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> >>>>>> nobody
> >>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> ermouth
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> >>> that
> >>>> we
> >>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> >>> styles
> >>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> >>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> >>>>>> example
> >>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> >>>>>> re-play
> >>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> >> anyone
> >>> in
> >>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “…”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> >>> leaves
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> project>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> >>> have
> >>>>>> the
> >>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> >>> list
> >>>>>> for
> >>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> >>> inviting a
> >>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> >> even
> >>>> more
> >>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> >>> mailing
> >>>>>> list
> >>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
> >>> we
> >>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> >>>>>> efficient,
> >>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> >>>>>> cutting
> >>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> >> purpose
> >>>> as
> >>>>>> a
> >>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> >>> contributors
> >>>>>> is
> >>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> >>> makes
> >>>>>> sure
> >>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> >>>> making
> >>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> >>>> Long-term,
> >>>>>> it
> >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> >>>> does
> >>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> >>>>>> after,
> >>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> >> simply
> >>>>>> burned
> >>>>>>>> out.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> * * *
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Best
> >>>>>>>> Jan
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> --
> >>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>
> Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at right
> moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
> each time )
>
>> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
>
> As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does
> anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be dropped.
I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
thread?
Best
Jan
--
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
>
>> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>>
>> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
>> conversation, and also having fun!
>>
>> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or the
>> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say "Sure!"
>> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
>> will be.
>>
>> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of "yes-and"
>> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes its
>> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
>> "Yes, let's throw it out."
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
>>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
>>>
>>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
>>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
>>> current approach – he is right.
>>>
>>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely,
>> he
>>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
>> ortogonal
>>> to trust.
>>>
>>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
>>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
>>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
>> barbarian
>>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
>>>
>>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
>> here
>>>
>>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
>>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
>> that
>>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
>>> first.
>>>
>>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
>>> feedback, when you
>>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
>>>
>>> Absolutely. +1000.
>>>
>>> ermouth
>>>
>>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
>>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
>>>>>
>>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
>>>> only
>>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
>> are
>>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
>> can
>>> we
>>>>> avoid that?
>>>>
>>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
>> have
>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
>> disagreeing
>>>> with each other.
>>>>
>>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
>>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
>> about
>>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
>>>>
>>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
>>> excuses
>>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this
>>> out
>>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
>>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
>>> kind
>>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>
>>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
>>> why
>>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
>>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
>>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
>>>> ‘but’,
>>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
>>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
>>>> have
>>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
>>> disagreeing
>>>>>> with each other.”
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Best
>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>> --
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
>> “Starting
>>>> post
>>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
>>> contributors
>>>>>>> with this.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
>> but
>>>> to
>>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
>>>> then
>>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
>>>>>> nobody
>>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ermouth
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
>>> that
>>>> we
>>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
>>> styles
>>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
>>>>>> example
>>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
>>>>>> re-play
>>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
>> anyone
>>> in
>>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “…”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
>>> leaves
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> project>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
>>> have
>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
>>> list
>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
>>> inviting a
>>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
>> even
>>>> more
>>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
>>> mailing
>>>>>> list
>>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
>>> we
>>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
>>>>>> efficient,
>>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
>>>>>> cutting
>>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
>> purpose
>>>> as
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
>>> contributors
>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
>>> makes
>>>>>> sure
>>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
>>>> making
>>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
>>>> Long-term,
>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
>>>> does
>>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
>>>>>> after,
>>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
>> simply
>>>>>> burned
>>>>>>>> out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> * * *
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Best
>>>>>>>> Jan
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at right
moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’
each time )
> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does
anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be dropped.
ermouth
2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>:
> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
>
> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
> conversation, and also having fun!
>
> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or the
> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say "Sure!"
> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
> will be.
>
> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of "yes-and"
> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes its
> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
> "Yes, let's throw it out."
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > > that we have the best of the project in mind
> >
> > If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> > stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> > current approach – he is right.
> >
> > I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely,
> he
> > trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> ortogonal
> > to trust.
> >
> > Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> > Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
> > how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> barbarian
> > in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> >
> > > That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> here
> >
> > Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> > unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out,
> that
> > if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> > first.
> >
> > > [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> > feedback, when you
> > > have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> >
> > Absolutely. +1000.
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> > >
> > > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > > >> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > > >
> > > > That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> > > only
> > > > allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
> are
> > > > afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
> can
> > we
> > > > avoid that?
> > >
> > > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> have
> > > the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> disagreeing
> > > with each other.
> > >
> > > If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
> > > project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> about
> > > our culture. How can I improve that?
> > >
> > >
> > > > Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> > >
> > > I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> > excuses
> > > of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this
> > out
> > > in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
> > > this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
> > kind
> > > of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> > >
> > > Best
> > > Jan
> > > --
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > ermouth
> > > >
> > > > 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > > >
> > > >> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > > >>
> > > >> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
> > why
> > > >> this is supposed to work?”
> > > >> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > > >> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> > > ‘but’,
> > > >> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> > > >> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> > > have
> > > >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > disagreeing
> > > >> with each other.”
> > > >>
> > > >> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > > >>
> > > >> Best
> > > >> Jan
> > > >> --
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> “Starting
> > > post
> > > >>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> > contributors
> > > >>> with this.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
> but
> > > to
> > > >>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> > > then
> > > >>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> > > >> nobody
> > > >>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> ermouth
> > > >>>
> > > >>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > > >>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Hi Jan
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> > > wrote:
> > > >>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> > that
> > > we
> > > >>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> > styles
> > > >>>>> and how they are different?
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> > > >>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> > > >> example
> > > >>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> > > >> re-play
> > > >>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> anyone
> > in
> > > >>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “But…”-style:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “…”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> > leaves
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> project>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> > have
> > > >> the
> > > >>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> > list
> > > >> for
> > > >>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> > inviting a
> > > >>>> name as design@ is.”
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> even
> > > more
> > > >>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> > mailing
> > > >> list
> > > >>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
> > we
> > > >>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * * *
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> > > >> efficient,
> > > >>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> > > >> cutting
> > > >>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> purpose
> > > as
> > > >> a
> > > >>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> > contributors
> > > >> is
> > > >>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> > makes
> > > >> sure
> > > >>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> > > making
> > > >>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > > Long-term,
> > > >> it
> > > >>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> > > does
> > > >>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> > > >> after,
> > > >>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> simply
> > > >> burned
> > > >>>> out.
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> * * *
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> Best
> > > >>>> Jan
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> --
> > > >>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> --
> > > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>>
> > > >>
> > > >> --
> > > >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > >
> > > --
> > > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >
> > >
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the
conversation, and also having fun!
The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or the
facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say "Sure!"
and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences
will be.
For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of "yes-and"
style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes its
bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
"Yes, let's throw it out."
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > that we have the best of the project in mind
>
> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
> current approach – he is right.
>
> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely, he
> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely ortogonal
> to trust.
>
> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing barbarian
> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
>
> > That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here
>
> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out, that
> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
> first.
>
> > [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> feedback, when you
> > have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
>
> Absolutely. +1000.
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
> >
> > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > >> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > >
> > > That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> > only
> > > allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
> > > afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can
> we
> > > avoid that?
> >
> > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
> > the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
> > with each other.
> >
> > If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
> > project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions about
> > our culture. How can I improve that?
> >
> >
> > > Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> >
> > I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> excuses
> > of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this
> out
> > in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
> > this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the
> kind
> > of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > >
> > > ermouth
> > >
> > > 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >
> > >> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > >>
> > >> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and
> why
> > >> this is supposed to work?”
> > >> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > >> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> > ‘but’,
> > >> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> > >> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> > have
> > >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> disagreeing
> > >> with each other.”
> > >>
> > >> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > >>
> > >> Best
> > >> Jan
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>
> > >>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting
> > post
> > >>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> contributors
> > >>> with this.
> > >>>
> > >>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but
> > to
> > >>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> > then
> > >>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > >>>
> > >>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> > >> nobody
> > >>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> ermouth
> > >>>
> > >>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Hi Jan
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> > wrote:
> > >>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> that
> > we
> > >>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> styles
> > >>>>> and how they are different?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> > >>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> > >> example
> > >>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> > >> re-play
> > >>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone
> in
> > >>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “But…”-style:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “…”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> leaves
> > >> the
> > >>>> project>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> have
> > >> the
> > >>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> list
> > >> for
> > >>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> inviting a
> > >>>> name as design@ is.”
> > >>>>
> > >>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even
> > more
> > >>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> mailing
> > >> list
> > >>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe
> we
> > >>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > >>>>
> > >>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * * *
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> > >> efficient,
> > >>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> > >> cutting
> > >>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose
> > as
> > >> a
> > >>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> contributors
> > >> is
> > >>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> makes
> > >> sure
> > >>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> > making
> > >>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > Long-term,
> > >> it
> > >>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> > does
> > >>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> > >> after,
> > >>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
> > >> burned
> > >>>> out.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> * * *
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best
> > >>>> Jan
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> --
> > >>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >
> >
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> that we have the best of the project in mind
If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are
stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with
current approach – he is right.
I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely, he
trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely ortogonal
to trust.
Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution.
Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine,
how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing barbarian
in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here
Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out, that
if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself
first.
> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
feedback, when you
> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
Absolutely. +1000.
ermouth
2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
> > On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> >> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> >
> > That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is
> only
> > allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
> > afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we
> > avoid that?
>
> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
> with each other.
>
> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the
> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions about
> our culture. How can I improve that?
>
>
> > Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
>
> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy excuses
> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this out
> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on
> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the kind
> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> >> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> >>
> >> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why
> >> this is supposed to work?”
> >> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> >> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> ‘but’,
> >> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> >> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> have
> >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
> >> with each other.”
> >>
> >> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting
> post
> >>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
> >>> with this.
> >>>
> >>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but
> to
> >>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable,
> then
> >>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >>>
> >>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> >> nobody
> >>> dare to say ‘but’.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> ermouth
> >>>
> >>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hi Jan
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> >>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that
> we
> >>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
> >>>>> and how they are different?
> >>>>
> >>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> >>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> >> example
> >>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> >> re-play
> >>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
> >>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> “But…”-style:
> >>>>
> >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>
> >>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> >>>>
> >>>> “…”
> >>>>
> >>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves
> >> the
> >>>> project>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>>>
> >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>>>
> >>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have
> >> the
> >>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list
> >> for
> >>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>>>
> >>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
> >>>> name as design@ is.”
> >>>>
> >>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even
> more
> >>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing
> >> list
> >>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
> >>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>>>
> >>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>>>
> >>>> * * *
> >>>>
> >>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> >> efficient,
> >>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> >> cutting
> >>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose
> as
> >> a
> >>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors
> >> is
> >>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes
> >> sure
> >>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas
> making
> >>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> Long-term,
> >> it
> >>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it
> does
> >>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> >> after,
> >>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
> >> burned
> >>>> out.
> >>>>
> >>>> * * *
> >>>>
> >>>> Best
> >>>> Jan
> >>>> --
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
>
> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is only
> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we
> avoid that?
I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
with each other.
If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions about our culture. How can I improve that?
> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy excuses of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this out in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
Best
Jan
--
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
>>
>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why
>> this is supposed to work?”
>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say ‘but’,
>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
>> with each other.”
>>
>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post
>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
>>> with this.
>>>
>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to
>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then
>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>>>
>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
>> nobody
>>> dare to say ‘but’.
>>>
>>>
>>> ermouth
>>>
>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Hi Jan
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
>>>>> and how they are different?
>>>>
>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
>> example
>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
>> re-play
>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “But…”-style:
>>>>
>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>
>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>>>
>>>> “…”
>>>>
>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves
>> the
>>>> project>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>>>
>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>>>
>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have
>> the
>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list
>> for
>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>>>
>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
>>>> name as design@ is.”
>>>>
>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more
>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing
>> list
>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>>>
>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>>>
>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
>> efficient,
>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
>> cutting
>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as
>> a
>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors
>> is
>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes
>> sure
>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making
>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term,
>> it
>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does
>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
>> after,
>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
>> burned
>>>> out.
>>>>
>>>> * * *
>>>>
>>>> Best
>>>> Jan
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is only
allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are
afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we
avoid that?
Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
ermouth
2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> Of course, this could have gone this way:
>
> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why
> this is supposed to work?”
> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say ‘but’,
> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have
> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing
> with each other.”
>
> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
> > On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post
> > with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
> > with this.
> >
> > As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to
> > unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then
> > posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> >
> > Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed –
> nobody
> > dare to say ‘but’.
> >
> >
> > ermouth
> >
> > 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
> >
> >>
> >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Jan
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
> >>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >>>
> >>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
> >>> and how they are different?
> >>
> >> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> >> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your
> example
> >> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to
> re-play
> >> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
> >> particular, so I changed things a little):
> >>
> >>
> >> “But…”-style:
> >>
> >> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>
> >> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> >>
> >> “…”
> >>
> >> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves
> the
> >> project>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> “Yes, and…”-style:
> >>
> >> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> >>
> >> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have
> the
> >> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list
> for
> >> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> >>
> >> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
> >> name as design@ is.”
> >>
> >> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more
> >> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing
> list
> >> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
> >> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> >>
> >> <fruitful conversation continues>
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> efficient,
> >> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so
> cutting
> >> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as
> a
> >> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors
> is
> >> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes
> sure
> >> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making
> >> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term,
> it
> >> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does
> >> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right
> after,
> >> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply
> burned
> >> out.
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> Best
> >> Jan
> >> --
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> ,,,^..^,,,
> >>
> >> --
> >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >>
> >>
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Of course, this could have gone this way:
“That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why this is supposed to work?”
“Here’s a bunch of links: …”
“Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
“I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing with each other.”
But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
Best
Jan
--
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post
> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
> with this.
>
> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to
> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then
> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
>
> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed – nobody
> dare to say ‘but’.
>
>
> ermouth
>
> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
>>
>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Jan
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>>
>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
>>> and how they are different?
>>
>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example
>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play
>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
>> particular, so I changed things a little):
>>
>>
>> “But…”-style:
>>
>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>
>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>>
>> “…”
>>
>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the
>> project>
>>
>>
>>
>> “Yes, and…”-style:
>>
>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>>
>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the
>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for
>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>>
>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
>> name as design@ is.”
>>
>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more
>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list
>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>>
>> <fruitful conversation continues>
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient,
>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting
>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a
>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is
>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure
>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making
>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it
>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does
>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after,
>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned
>> out.
>>
>> * * *
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>
>> --
>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>>
>>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by ermouth <er...@gmail.com>.
Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post
with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors
with this.
As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to
unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then
posts, starting with ‘but‘.
Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed – nobody
dare to say ‘but’.
ermouth
2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>:
>
> > On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Jan
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> >> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
> >> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> >
> > Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
> > and how they are different?
>
> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example
> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play
> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in
> particular, so I changed things a little):
>
>
> “But…”-style:
>
> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>
> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>
> “…”
>
> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the
> project>
>
>
>
> “Yes, and…”-style:
>
> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>
> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the
> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for
> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>
> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a
> name as design@ is.”
>
> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more
> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list
> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we
> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>
> <fruitful conversation continues>
>
> * * *
>
> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient,
> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting
> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a
> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is
> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure
> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making
> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it
> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does
> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after,
> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned
> out.
>
> * * *
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
> >
> > --
> > ,,,^..^,,,
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
Thanks for the explanation.
I don't think there is anything dramatical if someone says that idea
is bad, expect if there are no arguments provided. But in anyway. this
doesn't mean that you should fall into deep well of depression, go for
the vodka and end your day in some dark empty room with heavy rain
outside.
Most of us tries to explain why idea is goor or bad (however, "I like
this" rarely follows with "because") and that's a whole point of
discussion: take a wide look on idea from positive and negative sides,
locate it flaws and good points, find a balance in trade-offs and come
to the solution that turns all negative effects to zero or makes them
non relevant.
Speaking about our example, there is no issue at all: idea was
proposed, critique provided, people found idea good and respond on
critique with the facts. Quite healthy discussion.
I also find people who would like to give up with the first negative
feedback on their ideas as not the best base for community as it's too
easy to ruin it while they cannot defend own visions and position. But
we don't have such (:
What really hurts conversations is false-positive feedback, when you
have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas. That's
really bad since we should be honest in our words and thoughts.
I feel that this problem is sort of trade-off and it's not possible to
satisfy both groups. So any strong agreement cannot be reached here.
But what indeed we need is keep our conversations healthy: avoid to be
toxic, avoid to say things that people want to hear, but you think in
other way, provide a balanced vision on ideas and the work. I think we
have all of these now and there is nothing to worry about, right?
P.S. You know, there are two kind of life experience: negative and
useless. No need to afraid any critique, especially if it comes with a
reason.
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 1:52 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Jan
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>>
>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
>> and how they are different?
>
> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in particular, so I changed things a little):
>
>
> “But…”-style:
>
> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>
> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
>
> “…”
>
> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the project>
>
>
>
> “Yes, and…”-style:
>
> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
>
> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
>
> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a name as design@ is.”
>
> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
>
> <fruitful conversation continues>
>
> * * *
>
> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient, we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after, because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned out.
>
> * * *
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
>
>>
>> --
>> ,,,^..^,,,
>
> --
> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
>
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Jan
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
>
> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
> and how they are different?
Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in particular, so I changed things a little):
“But…”-style:
“Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
“That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
“…”
<after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the project>
“Yes, and…”-style:
“Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
“That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
“Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a name as design@ is.”
“I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
<fruitful conversation continues>
* * *
If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient, we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after, because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned out.
* * *
Best
Jan
--
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: “Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
Hi Jan
On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles
and how they are different?
--
,,,^..^,,,
“Yes, and…”, not “But…” (Was: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Hey all,
here is something that we agreed to do on this list, multiple times, and
it seems we are missing to keep this up as a culture.
We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we
are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
So, again, the ground rules for discussing anyone’s ideas and suggestions is:
1. Encouragement: ”That’s an interesting point.”
2. Improvement: “Here is how we can make this idea even better.”
This isn’t to say all ideas and suggestions are great, and that as a result we should do all sort of not so great things. But(!), if we handle and consider each suggestion and idea in the same respectful manner, we will get more of them proposed by more people and as a result make CouchDB more successful.
If, on the other hand, we are assuming most ideas are bad, and that we need a discussion culture that helps us weed all the bad ideas as efficiently as possible, we are not trusting the people that have shown commitment to the CouchDB project.
I, for one, trust, that you have all the best interests of the CouchDB project in mind, and that your ideas and suggestions are coming from a place of improvement and progress. We can still agree and disagree on individual issues, but I trust you have the right intentions.
Best
Jan Lehnardt
Vice President of Apache CouchDB and PMC Chair
--
> On 12 Sep 2015, at 21:08, Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd> wrote:
>
>> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
>> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
>> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
>> their life easy and to not loose even them
>
> That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small
> because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback
> they receive.
>
> I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not
> getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There
> is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful
> for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me"
> or "we don't attract enough people for that".
>
> It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we
> could fix the problem instead.
>
> Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to
> try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have
> to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't
> encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of
> friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry.
>
> When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to
> the project they would have made me go away from the project.
>
> In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like
> "how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
> place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a
> problem.
>
> For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work
> further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and
> I think it would also apply to others.
>
> </offtopic>
>
> I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it
> easier for designers to participate in CouchDB.
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>
>> wrote:
>>> You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
>>>
>>> I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use
>> it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
>>
>> Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
>>
>>> We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
>>> Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being
>> discussed (for new people).
>>>
>>> I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and
>> people know right away its about design.
>>> It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
>>
>> Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
>> to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
>> it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
>> Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
>>
>> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
>> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
>> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
>> their life easy and to not loose even them.
>>
>> There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
>> discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
>> want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
>> active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
>> have it now.
>>
>> --
>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Robert Kowalski <ro...@kowalski.gd>.
> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> their life easy and to not loose even them
That's a good point, sometimes I ask myself if our community is so small
because it is so hard to make proposals and because of the type of feedback
they receive.
I sometimes get the feeling many proposals with good intentions are not
getting much constructive feedback at some point from a few persons. There
is almost always someone how says something negative that is not helpful
for anyone, like: "that is impossible" or "that does not make sense to me"
or "we don't attract enough people for that".
It is important to note that there is usually no suggestion included how we
could fix the problem instead.
Taking a look at my proposals these responses don't help me to continue to
try to make the project better. I am suddenly in the situation where I have
to defend why something is not "impossible". These responses also don't
encourage me to stick to the proposal I submitted. They also cause a lot of
friction for me and make me sad, sometimes angry.
When I would have read these feedbacks 1-2 years ago when I was very new to
the project they would have made me go away from the project.
In the future I would be super happy to hear questions or suggestions like
"how can we attract enough people to make a possible design ML a thriving
place for many designers?" instead - if someone thinks that this might be a
problem.
For proposals that I've written in the past months it would help me to work
further on the proposed idea and motivate me to try to improve CouchDB and
I think it would also apply to others.
</offtopic>
I am +1 on the design ML. I am also +1 on every experiment to make it
easier for designers to participate in CouchDB.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:04 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>
> wrote:
> > You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
> >
> > I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use
> it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
>
> Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
>
> > We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
> > Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being
> discussed (for new people).
> >
> > I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and
> people know right away its about design.
> > It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
>
> Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
> to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
> it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
> Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
>
> While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
> enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
> community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
> their life easy and to not loose even them.
>
> There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
> discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
> want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
> active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
> have it now.
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 8:50 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
>
> I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
Then I was not clear (: Sorry.
> We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
> Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being discussed (for new people).
>
> I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and people know right away its about design.
> It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
Since our design topics are www-related, it makes hard to decide where
to start topic about some, let's say, Fauxton feature. On one hand,
it's www-related, however, without design bits users cannot use it.
Split discussion over two ML's sounds as overkill.
While idea is good and clear, I don't believe that we can attract
enough people to have this ML alive. Suddenly, our active part of
community is quite small and here question lays in dimension to make
their life easy and to not loose even them.
There is a reason to create a new ML to isolate some specific
discussions from the others (like erlang talks from frontend). But you
want to fragmentate fronend topics while existed ML is not much
active. I'm fine with new ML, but I don't think it's reasonable to
have it now.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
> On 10 Sep 2015, at 19:50, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Kxepal,
>
> You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
>
> I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
>
> We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
> Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being discussed (for new people).
>
> I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and people know right away its about design.
> It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
+1
Jan
--
>
> Michelle
>
>
>> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Will repeat myself from IRC:
>>
>> Why not to reuse www@ ML, which is abandon now, for web design bits?
>> --
>> ,,,^..^,,,
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>> I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
>>>
>>> It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
>>> It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
>>>
>>> Michelle Phung
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
--
Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org>.
Kxepal,
You didn’t say it like that exactly in irc :P but you did allude to it :)
I thought you meant that if I opened a design@ML that people would use it sparsely as they used the www@ML sparsely. :)
We could reuse www@ but its a narrow label for all things design.
Although www@ML as a name is not very descriptive as to what is being discussed (for new people).
I’d like the design@ML to be an umbrella for design discussions. and people know right away its about design.
It will be like a door for designers to come to couchDB through.
Michelle
> On Sep 10, 2015, at 1:31 PM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Will repeat myself from IRC:
>
> Why not to reuse www@ ML, which is abandon now, for web design bits?
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Hello,
>>
>> I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
>>
>> It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
>> It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
>>
>> Michelle Phung
>>
>>
>>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Create design@couchdb.apache.org mailing list
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
Will repeat myself from IRC:
Why not to reuse www@ ML, which is abandon now, for web design bits?
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 4:18 PM, Michelle Phung <mi...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I would like to open mailing thread for CouchDB designers, design advocates, and design enthusiasts.
>
> It is a place to discuss all things design related with respect to CouchDB.
> It could be a good place for people to learn about design.
>
> Michelle Phung
>
>
>