You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> on 2014/07/19 11:03:31 UTC
[PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
really busy these days.
I don't have access to the confluence website neither I see a simple way to
patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others. We
> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow
> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel
> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people
> outside our community.
Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture) by
honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient"
are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at the
EUC, but never had time to post it here...
Thoughts?
- benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 11:23 , Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 19 Jul 2014, at 11:03 , Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
>>> really busy these days.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have access to the confluence website
>>
>> You can create an account here:
>> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/signup.action
>> If you tell us your username, we can give you the correct ACLs.
>>
>> Best
>> Jan
>> --
>>
>>
>> OK. Anyway the wiki is not really good to comment / propose a change, so
> let's discuss here .
>
> - benoit.
>
Sure, just wanted to make sure you know how to get on the wiki :)
Best
Jan
--
>
>
>>
>>
>>> I see a simple way to
>>> patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
>>>
>>> Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
>>>> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others.
>> We
>>>> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not
>> allow
>>>> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people
>> feel
>>>> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
>>>> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with
>> people
>>>> outside our community.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture)
>> by
>>> honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and
>> patient"
>>> are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
>>> interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at
>> the
>>> EUC, but never had time to post it here...
>>>
>>> Thoughts?
>>>
>>> - benoit
>>
>>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:13 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> On 19 Jul 2014, at 11:03 , Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
> > really busy these days.
> >
> >
> > I don't have access to the confluence website
>
> You can create an account here:
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/signup.action
> If you tell us your username, we can give you the correct ACLs.
>
> Best
> Jan
> --
>
>
> OK. Anyway the wiki is not really good to comment / propose a change, so
let's discuss here .
- benoit.
>
>
> > I see a simple way to
> > patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
> >
> > Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
> >> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others.
> We
> >> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not
> allow
> >> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people
> feel
> >> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
> >> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with
> people
> >> outside our community.
> >
> >
> >
> > Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture)
> by
> > honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and
> patient"
> > are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
> > interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at
> the
> > EUC, but never had time to post it here...
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > - benoit
>
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 11:03 , Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
> really busy these days.
>
>
> I don't have access to the confluence website
You can create an account here: https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/signup.action
If you tell us your username, we can give you the correct ACLs.
Best
Jan
--
> I see a simple way to
> patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
>
> Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
>> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others. We
>> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow
>> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel
>> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
>> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people
>> outside our community.
>
>
>
> Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture) by
> honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient"
> are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
> interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at the
> EUC, but never had time to post it here...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 9:05 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> On 28 July 2014 20:53, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Quoting the "bylaws" you're refferrng:
> >
> > If a proposal is particularly controversial, try making it
> reversible.
>
> This proposal is not "particularly controversial". You're the only
> person who disagrees, with the use of a single word.
>
> Please, PLEASE, respect the fact that we have wasted *many* person
> hours on this thread already, and it is interminable. There is no
> unanimous resolution. So either we take a tally in the form of a vote,
> to confirm the consensus, or you drop it. Continuing to reply to
> emails here about how you don't like this word is unproductive and not
> respectful of project resources.
>
> > Note that i am the one to decide if I abandon it. It's clear that if no
> one
> > agreed in a limited time, I will just consider it as abandoned. My last
> > proposal based on this discussion is indeed the last I will have.
>
> It is already clear to me what the result is.
>
Maybe, but actually you are actually wasting my time. I made a *last*
proposal, I do care about an answer about it. If you don't have anything to
add to that topic please don't interfere.
- benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
On 28 July 2014 20:53, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Quoting the "bylaws" you're refferrng:
>
> If a proposal is particularly controversial, try making it reversible.
This proposal is not "particularly controversial". You're the only
person who disagrees, with the use of a single word.
Please, PLEASE, respect the fact that we have wasted *many* person
hours on this thread already, and it is interminable. There is no
unanimous resolution. So either we take a tally in the form of a vote,
to confirm the consensus, or you drop it. Continuing to reply to
emails here about how you don't like this word is unproductive and not
respectful of project resources.
> Note that i am the one to decide if I abandon it. It's clear that if no one
> agreed in a limited time, I will just consider it as abandoned. My last
> proposal based on this discussion is indeed the last I will have.
It is already clear to me what the result is.
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Folks,
>
> We have what our bylaws term an "interminable discussion" on our hands.
>
> To quote the bylaws: "Please try to be respectful of people's time and
> attention. It is a non-renewable resource and the only thing we always
> need more of."
>
> Benoit, you are the lone voice of dissent here. Please acknowledge
> group consensus. This thread has already wasted far too many project
> resources, and we are all to blame for participating in that.
>
> Please let's not discuss this any further.
>
Not to fast.
You probably missed the part where I made changes on the initial proposal 1
day ago trying to find a consensus (reframing), which is the third change.
I didn't have any answer.
Quoting the "bylaws" you're refferrng:
If a proposal is particularly controversial, try making it reversible.
Reframe the proposal as an experiment (either at the project level or the
feature level) and identify a timeline for evaluation along with
unambiguous success and failure criteria. These sorts of proposal are
usually much easier to agree on.
If a clear consensus emerges, you can proceed without a vote. Otherwise,
you should abandon the proposal or move to a vote.
Note that i am the one to decide if I abandon it. It's clear that if no one
agreed in a limited time, I will just consider it as abandoned. My last
proposal based on this discussion is indeed the last I will have.
- benoit.
- benoit.
>
> On 27 July 2014 21:04, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
> >> > >
> >> > > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
> >> > behaviorist assumption by the way.
> >>
> >> It is not behaviourist. Go read up on mirror neurons. There is
> >> plenty of physiological evidence supporting. Empathy is innate to the
> >> human physiology. Further, validation through discussion is the core of
> >> this point: trying to understand their emotional states and using
> >> that to intelligently inform your discourse on the mailing list is
> >> crucial to supportive discussion.
> >>
> >> The project is asking the same of you (and all other participants),
> >> and making it clear in this clause that tone-deaf responses that
> >> intentionally ignore others' emotional state are not appropriate.
> >>
> >> > In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4)
> >>
> >> Using my empathy I read this as passive-aggressive disagreement. I
> >> am going to ask you to please assume good faith on the part of those
> >> you are discussing this with. It is clear you are both frustrated and
> >> angry in this discussion to me (again, empathy) and I am doing my
> >> best to respond in a matter that will not further antagonize you.
> >>
> >> > And it is definitely a psychological term.
> >>
> >> Our project is littered with jargon that is terribly intimidating to
> >> those not of a computer science or engineering background. We are just
> >> about to pass bylaws that encourage those without that background to
> >> contribute in the ways that they can: on design, translation,
> >> documentation, project management and many other topics. To these
> people,
> >> and to many engineers & computer scientists, this term is a lot more
> >> familiar than Brewer's Therorem or Shannon's Theorem - or even Occam's
> >> Razor.
> >>
> >> > Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there.
> Why a
> >> > description of what the expected behavior from the member of the
> >> community
> >> > isn't enough?
> >>
> >> The description has been laid out in that same paragraph quite clearly.
> >>
> >> "Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to
> >> resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an
> >> empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to
> >> time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A
> >> community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a
> productive
> >> one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members
> as
> >> well as with people outside our community."
> >>
> >> But this description alone is insufficient without making it clear that
> >> awareness and recognition of the emotional state of others is a critical
> >> capacity that we require within this community.
> >>
> >> > Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on
> >> "lack
> >> > of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
> >>
> >> We are talking about empathy for the other people engaged in
> collaboration,
> >> not third parties here. This is not about, for example, showing deep
> >> empathy
> >> for the homeless or poverty-stricken. This is about me, Joan, showing
> >> empathy
> >> for you, Benoit, and understanding that your emotional state is
> potentially
> >> affecting how you are participating in this discussion. Claiming that
> you
> >> "only know 4 languages" to me triggered a mental recognition of your
> >> response
> >> as possibly passive-aggressive, to which I'm attempting to respond as
> >> delicately
> >> as possible.
> >>
> >> > I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something
> that
> >> > looks like a political agenda trying to impose the usage of some
> >> > conflicting terms.
> >>
> >> Narrowly looking at this single sentence, I hope you have misunderstood
> the
> >> intent of this clause to mean "empathy for underprivileged third
> parties."
> >> The point is empathy for other contributors and their emotional state.
> I am
> >> showing restraint, not resorting to personal attacks, and doing my best
> to
> >> make you feel comfortable within this discussion and to not feel
> threatened
> >> by my words or actions.
> >>
> >> I'll provide another example. Last week, Noah reverted a number of my
> edits
> >> to the proposed bylaws. These were primarily syntax and grammar edits,
> but
> >> just the same it angered me greatly. Noah and I had a short discussion
> on
> >> IRC during which I tried to explain to him how angry I was. Noah had a
> lack
> >> of empathy in that he thought I was joking. When I explained I was
> really
> >> angry he and I both agreed to take a pause for an hour or so. By the
> time I
> >> came back, we came to a satisfactory resolution. Further, Noah
> personally
> >> apologized for upsetting me, which helped me feel better about
> contributing
> >> to the project in the future.
> >>
> >> This is really all we're asking of people with this clause. It is
> neither
> >> codification of a social justice agenda, nor tantamount to enforcing you
> >> to make every CouchDB commit an act of selfless love for the
> >> underprivileged
> >> of this world. We must be a friendly, supportive community where one's
> >> emotional state is not something of which to be ashamed, neglected, or
> >> willingly trodden upon by other members - especially those who hold
> status
> >> through being recognized committers or PMC members. In other words, no
> role
> >> gives you the permission to walk on others' feelings. They must be taken
> >> into consideration with every action.
> >>
> >> -Joan
> >>
> >
> > This where your empathy fails. I was just factual, answering to this
> > language knowledge argument that was advanced. Some simple links:
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/empathie/47249
> >
> > Of course you will have to trust me about that.... Also I will just
> kindly
> > remember you that i am not an engineer neither one of this techies you
> seem
> > to assume I am. I have a plain background that shows it. It also shows
> you
> > don't really know me, which is quite normal ;)
> >
> > I won't answer in detail for the rest. I agree with some points and
> > disagree completely with some other. But that not the point of this
> thread.
> >
> > Let's be more clear, I propose to remove the word empathy and find a
> > sentence/paragraph that express what others expect from the others. I
> would
> > vote a text like this. I will be extremely uncomfortable with any text
> that
> > contains the word empathy.
> >
> > - benoit.
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
Folks,
We have what our bylaws term an "interminable discussion" on our hands.
To quote the bylaws: "Please try to be respectful of people's time and
attention. It is a non-renewable resource and the only thing we always
need more of."
Benoit, you are the lone voice of dissent here. Please acknowledge
group consensus. This thread has already wasted far too many project
resources, and we are all to blame for participating in that.
Please let's not discuss this any further.
On 27 July 2014 21:04, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
>> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
>> wrote:
>> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
>> > >
>> > > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
>> > behaviorist assumption by the way.
>>
>> It is not behaviourist. Go read up on mirror neurons. There is
>> plenty of physiological evidence supporting. Empathy is innate to the
>> human physiology. Further, validation through discussion is the core of
>> this point: trying to understand their emotional states and using
>> that to intelligently inform your discourse on the mailing list is
>> crucial to supportive discussion.
>>
>> The project is asking the same of you (and all other participants),
>> and making it clear in this clause that tone-deaf responses that
>> intentionally ignore others' emotional state are not appropriate.
>>
>> > In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4)
>>
>> Using my empathy I read this as passive-aggressive disagreement. I
>> am going to ask you to please assume good faith on the part of those
>> you are discussing this with. It is clear you are both frustrated and
>> angry in this discussion to me (again, empathy) and I am doing my
>> best to respond in a matter that will not further antagonize you.
>>
>> > And it is definitely a psychological term.
>>
>> Our project is littered with jargon that is terribly intimidating to
>> those not of a computer science or engineering background. We are just
>> about to pass bylaws that encourage those without that background to
>> contribute in the ways that they can: on design, translation,
>> documentation, project management and many other topics. To these people,
>> and to many engineers & computer scientists, this term is a lot more
>> familiar than Brewer's Therorem or Shannon's Theorem - or even Occam's
>> Razor.
>>
>> > Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a
>> > description of what the expected behavior from the member of the
>> community
>> > isn't enough?
>>
>> The description has been laid out in that same paragraph quite clearly.
>>
>> "Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to
>> resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an
>> empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to
>> time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A
>> community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive
>> one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members as
>> well as with people outside our community."
>>
>> But this description alone is insufficient without making it clear that
>> awareness and recognition of the emotional state of others is a critical
>> capacity that we require within this community.
>>
>> > Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on
>> "lack
>> > of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
>>
>> We are talking about empathy for the other people engaged in collaboration,
>> not third parties here. This is not about, for example, showing deep
>> empathy
>> for the homeless or poverty-stricken. This is about me, Joan, showing
>> empathy
>> for you, Benoit, and understanding that your emotional state is potentially
>> affecting how you are participating in this discussion. Claiming that you
>> "only know 4 languages" to me triggered a mental recognition of your
>> response
>> as possibly passive-aggressive, to which I'm attempting to respond as
>> delicately
>> as possible.
>>
>> > I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that
>> > looks like a political agenda trying to impose the usage of some
>> > conflicting terms.
>>
>> Narrowly looking at this single sentence, I hope you have misunderstood the
>> intent of this clause to mean "empathy for underprivileged third parties."
>> The point is empathy for other contributors and their emotional state. I am
>> showing restraint, not resorting to personal attacks, and doing my best to
>> make you feel comfortable within this discussion and to not feel threatened
>> by my words or actions.
>>
>> I'll provide another example. Last week, Noah reverted a number of my edits
>> to the proposed bylaws. These were primarily syntax and grammar edits, but
>> just the same it angered me greatly. Noah and I had a short discussion on
>> IRC during which I tried to explain to him how angry I was. Noah had a lack
>> of empathy in that he thought I was joking. When I explained I was really
>> angry he and I both agreed to take a pause for an hour or so. By the time I
>> came back, we came to a satisfactory resolution. Further, Noah personally
>> apologized for upsetting me, which helped me feel better about contributing
>> to the project in the future.
>>
>> This is really all we're asking of people with this clause. It is neither
>> codification of a social justice agenda, nor tantamount to enforcing you
>> to make every CouchDB commit an act of selfless love for the
>> underprivileged
>> of this world. We must be a friendly, supportive community where one's
>> emotional state is not something of which to be ashamed, neglected, or
>> willingly trodden upon by other members - especially those who hold status
>> through being recognized committers or PMC members. In other words, no role
>> gives you the permission to walk on others' feelings. They must be taken
>> into consideration with every action.
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>
> This where your empathy fails. I was just factual, answering to this
> language knowledge argument that was advanced. Some simple links:
>
> http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
>
> or
>
> http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/empathie/47249
>
> Of course you will have to trust me about that.... Also I will just kindly
> remember you that i am not an engineer neither one of this techies you seem
> to assume I am. I have a plain background that shows it. It also shows you
> don't really know me, which is quite normal ;)
>
> I won't answer in detail for the rest. I agree with some points and
> disagree completely with some other. But that not the point of this thread.
>
> Let's be more clear, I propose to remove the word empathy and find a
> sentence/paragraph that express what others expect from the others. I would
> vote a text like this. I will be extremely uncomfortable with any text that
> contains the word empathy.
>
> - benoit.
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> > >
> > > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
> > >
> > > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
> > behaviorist assumption by the way.
>
> It is not behaviourist. Go read up on mirror neurons. There is
> plenty of physiological evidence supporting. Empathy is innate to the
> human physiology. Further, validation through discussion is the core of
> this point: trying to understand their emotional states and using
> that to intelligently inform your discourse on the mailing list is
> crucial to supportive discussion.
>
> The project is asking the same of you (and all other participants),
> and making it clear in this clause that tone-deaf responses that
> intentionally ignore others' emotional state are not appropriate.
>
> > In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4)
>
> Using my empathy I read this as passive-aggressive disagreement. I
> am going to ask you to please assume good faith on the part of those
> you are discussing this with. It is clear you are both frustrated and
> angry in this discussion to me (again, empathy) and I am doing my
> best to respond in a matter that will not further antagonize you.
>
> > And it is definitely a psychological term.
>
> Our project is littered with jargon that is terribly intimidating to
> those not of a computer science or engineering background. We are just
> about to pass bylaws that encourage those without that background to
> contribute in the ways that they can: on design, translation,
> documentation, project management and many other topics. To these people,
> and to many engineers & computer scientists, this term is a lot more
> familiar than Brewer's Therorem or Shannon's Theorem - or even Occam's
> Razor.
>
> > Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a
> > description of what the expected behavior from the member of the
> community
> > isn't enough?
>
> The description has been laid out in that same paragraph quite clearly.
>
> "Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to
> resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an
> empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to
> time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A
> community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive
> one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members as
> well as with people outside our community."
>
> But this description alone is insufficient without making it clear that
> awareness and recognition of the emotional state of others is a critical
> capacity that we require within this community.
>
> > Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on
> "lack
> > of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
>
> We are talking about empathy for the other people engaged in collaboration,
> not third parties here. This is not about, for example, showing deep
> empathy
> for the homeless or poverty-stricken. This is about me, Joan, showing
> empathy
> for you, Benoit, and understanding that your emotional state is potentially
> affecting how you are participating in this discussion. Claiming that you
> "only know 4 languages" to me triggered a mental recognition of your
> response
> as possibly passive-aggressive, to which I'm attempting to respond as
> delicately
> as possible.
>
> > I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that
> > looks like a political agenda trying to impose the usage of some
> > conflicting terms.
>
> Narrowly looking at this single sentence, I hope you have misunderstood the
> intent of this clause to mean "empathy for underprivileged third parties."
> The point is empathy for other contributors and their emotional state. I am
> showing restraint, not resorting to personal attacks, and doing my best to
> make you feel comfortable within this discussion and to not feel threatened
> by my words or actions.
>
> I'll provide another example. Last week, Noah reverted a number of my edits
> to the proposed bylaws. These were primarily syntax and grammar edits, but
> just the same it angered me greatly. Noah and I had a short discussion on
> IRC during which I tried to explain to him how angry I was. Noah had a lack
> of empathy in that he thought I was joking. When I explained I was really
> angry he and I both agreed to take a pause for an hour or so. By the time I
> came back, we came to a satisfactory resolution. Further, Noah personally
> apologized for upsetting me, which helped me feel better about contributing
> to the project in the future.
>
> This is really all we're asking of people with this clause. It is neither
> codification of a social justice agenda, nor tantamount to enforcing you
> to make every CouchDB commit an act of selfless love for the
> underprivileged
> of this world. We must be a friendly, supportive community where one's
> emotional state is not something of which to be ashamed, neglected, or
> willingly trodden upon by other members - especially those who hold status
> through being recognized committers or PMC members. In other words, no role
> gives you the permission to walk on others' feelings. They must be taken
> into consideration with every action.
>
> -Joan
>
This where your empathy fails. I was just factual, answering to this
language knowledge argument that was advanced. Some simple links:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
or
http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/empathie/47249
Of course you will have to trust me about that.... Also I will just kindly
remember you that i am not an engineer neither one of this techies you seem
to assume I am. I have a plain background that shows it. It also shows you
don't really know me, which is quite normal ;)
I won't answer in detail for the rest. I agree with some points and
disagree completely with some other. But that not the point of this thread.
Let's be more clear, I propose to remove the word empathy and find a
sentence/paragraph that express what others expect from the others. I would
vote a text like this. I will be extremely uncomfortable with any text that
contains the word empathy.
- benoit.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
The Code of Conduct defines what we mean by empathy, so we don’t need to get hung up on alternate definitions.
> This Code defines empathy as "a vicarious participation in the emotions, ideas, or opinions of others; the ability to imagine oneself in the condition or predicament of another."
Hopefully this is both unambiguous and unobjectionable to you, Benoit? I think we’re all clear that the call to be empathetic is not a call to be clairvoyant.
Finally, I’m unsure how a code of conduct can be "neutral" or not "political" since we are defining acceptable and unacceptable behavior.
B.
On 27 Jul 2014, at 10:25, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>>>
>>>> Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
>> behaviorist
>>> assumption by the way.
>>
>> Empathy could also be defined as the action of attempting to understand the
>> perspective of the other person. Presumably this then results in a more
>> effective
>> discussion. I’m not sure what behaviourist is, but I will read up on it
>> later.
>>
>> I’m reasonably comfortable assuming that empathy, however you choose to
>> define it,
>> is not an English language construct. In the few languages I’m familiar
>> with, it
>> seems quite consistent in usage, enough for us to use it in this CoC.
>>
>
>
> In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4) it is also consistent
> in what I defined even in english. Take the merriam webster definition for
> example, or the larousse one or the other reference dictionaries. And it
> is definitely a psychological term.
>
>
>
>>>> I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking
>> out
>>>> for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve
>>>> conflict amicably.
>>
>> +1 an admirable objective.
>>
>>>> One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example,
>> notice
>>>> how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first
>> time. We
>>>> take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work
>>>> around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic
>>>> medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even
>> more.
>>>>
>>>> I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth
>>>> capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and
>> can't
>>>> replace empathy.
>>
>> I wholeheartedly concur, +10^23.
>>
>>> I don't see why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be
>>> there. Why do you want to use a psychological term only use by a group of
>>> the population in a code of **conduct**? Last proposal I did define what
>>> you seems to expect from the others without either using the term of
>> trust
>>> or empathy. I don't see any reason about using a vague term known to be
>>> conflicting in its resolution. A code of conduct should only be a
>> framework
>>> for the community, not a way to transform it in a club.
>>>
>>> - benoit.
>>
>> I think we’ve reached the limit on discussing further in this thread. We
>> seem
>> to have 1 repeated dissenting opinion about the precise usage of empathy,
>> and
>> about 6 others who are content with the current phrasing.
>>
>> Either we use alternate wording, or we stick with what we’ve got. Where to
>> next?
>>
>
> Well i din't have any reaction on my last proposal. Neither you answer to
> my question. ie:
>
> Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a
> description of what the expected behavior from the member of the community
> isn't enough?
>
> Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on "lack
> of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
>
> I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that
> looks like a political agenda trying
> to impose the usage of some conflicting terms.
>
> - benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
wrote:
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >
> > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
> >
> > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
> behaviorist assumption by the way.
It is not behaviourist. Go read up on mirror neurons. There is
plenty of physiological evidence supporting. Empathy is innate to the
human physiology. Further, validation through discussion is the core of
this point: trying to understand their emotional states and using
that to intelligently inform your discourse on the mailing list is
crucial to supportive discussion.
The project is asking the same of you (and all other participants),
and making it clear in this clause that tone-deaf responses that
intentionally ignore others' emotional state are not appropriate.
> In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4)
Using my empathy I read this as passive-aggressive disagreement. I
am going to ask you to please assume good faith on the part of those
you are discussing this with. It is clear you are both frustrated and
angry in this discussion to me (again, empathy) and I am doing my
best to respond in a matter that will not further antagonize you.
> And it is definitely a psychological term.
Our project is littered with jargon that is terribly intimidating to
those not of a computer science or engineering background. We are just
about to pass bylaws that encourage those without that background to
contribute in the ways that they can: on design, translation,
documentation, project management and many other topics. To these people,
and to many engineers & computer scientists, this term is a lot more
familiar than Brewer's Therorem or Shannon's Theorem - or even Occam's
Razor.
> Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a
> description of what the expected behavior from the member of the community
> isn't enough?
The description has been laid out in that same paragraph quite clearly.
"Be empathetic, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to act in an empathetic fashion. We may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people outside our community."
But this description alone is insufficient without making it clear that
awareness and recognition of the emotional state of others is a critical
capacity that we require within this community.
> Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on "lack
> of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
We are talking about empathy for the other people engaged in collaboration,
not third parties here. This is not about, for example, showing deep empathy
for the homeless or poverty-stricken. This is about me, Joan, showing empathy
for you, Benoit, and understanding that your emotional state is potentially
affecting how you are participating in this discussion. Claiming that you
"only know 4 languages" to me triggered a mental recognition of your response
as possibly passive-aggressive, to which I'm attempting to respond as delicately
as possible.
> I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that
> looks like a political agenda trying to impose the usage of some
> conflicting terms.
Narrowly looking at this single sentence, I hope you have misunderstood the
intent of this clause to mean "empathy for underprivileged third parties."
The point is empathy for other contributors and their emotional state. I am
showing restraint, not resorting to personal attacks, and doing my best to
make you feel comfortable within this discussion and to not feel threatened
by my words or actions.
I'll provide another example. Last week, Noah reverted a number of my edits
to the proposed bylaws. These were primarily syntax and grammar edits, but
just the same it angered me greatly. Noah and I had a short discussion on
IRC during which I tried to explain to him how angry I was. Noah had a lack
of empathy in that he thought I was joking. When I explained I was really
angry he and I both agreed to take a pause for an hour or so. By the time I
came back, we came to a satisfactory resolution. Further, Noah personally
apologized for upsetting me, which helped me feel better about contributing
to the project in the future.
This is really all we're asking of people with this clause. It is neither
codification of a social justice agenda, nor tantamount to enforcing you
to make every CouchDB commit an act of selfless love for the underprivileged
of this world. We must be a friendly, supportive community where one's
emotional state is not something of which to be ashamed, neglected, or
willingly trodden upon by other members - especially those who hold status
through being recognized committers or PMC members. In other words, no role
gives you the permission to walk on others' feelings. They must be taken
into consideration with every action.
-Joan
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>
wrote:
>
> > On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
> >
> > > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
> > >
> >
> > This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A
> behaviorist
> > assumption by the way.
>
> Empathy could also be defined as the action of attempting to understand the
> perspective of the other person. Presumably this then results in a more
> effective
> discussion. I’m not sure what behaviourist is, but I will read up on it
> later.
>
> I’m reasonably comfortable assuming that empathy, however you choose to
> define it,
> is not an English language construct. In the few languages I’m familiar
> with, it
> seems quite consistent in usage, enough for us to use it in this CoC.
>
In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4) it is also consistent
in what I defined even in english. Take the merriam webster definition for
example, or the larousse one or the other reference dictionaries. And it
is definitely a psychological term.
> > > I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking
> out
> > > for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve
> > > conflict amicably.
>
> +1 an admirable objective.
>
> > > One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example,
> notice
> > > how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first
> time. We
> > > take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work
> > > around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously.
> > >
> > > The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic
> > > medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even
> more.
> > >
> > > I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth
> > > capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and
> can't
> > > replace empathy.
>
> I wholeheartedly concur, +10^23.
>
> > I don't see why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be
> > there. Why do you want to use a psychological term only use by a group of
> > the population in a code of **conduct**? Last proposal I did define what
> > you seems to expect from the others without either using the term of
> trust
> > or empathy. I don't see any reason about using a vague term known to be
> > conflicting in its resolution. A code of conduct should only be a
> framework
> > for the community, not a way to transform it in a club.
> >
> > - benoit.
>
> I think we’ve reached the limit on discussing further in this thread. We
> seem
> to have 1 repeated dissenting opinion about the precise usage of empathy,
> and
> about 6 others who are content with the current phrasing.
>
> Either we use alternate wording, or we stick with what we’ve got. Where to
> next?
>
Well i din't have any reaction on my last proposal. Neither you answer to
my question. ie:
Why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be there. Why a
description of what the expected behavior from the member of the community
isn't enough?
Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on "lack
of empathy" will solved. Who will be the more empathetic?
I strongly suggest to have a neutral code of conduct. Not something that
looks like a political agenda trying
to impose the usage of some conflicting terms.
- benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Dave Cottlehuber <dc...@jsonified.com>.
> On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt wrote:
>
> > Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
> >
>
> This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A behaviorist
> assumption by the way.
Empathy could also be defined as the action of attempting to understand the
perspective of the other person. Presumably this then results in a more effective
discussion. I’m not sure what behaviourist is, but I will read up on it later.
I’m reasonably comfortable assuming that empathy, however you choose to define it,
is not an English language construct. In the few languages I’m familiar with, it
seems quite consistent in usage, enough for us to use it in this CoC.
> > I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking out
> > for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve
> > conflict amicably.
+1 an admirable objective.
> > One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example, notice
> > how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first time. We
> > take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work
> > around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously.
> >
> > The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic
> > medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even more.
> >
> > I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth
> > capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and can't
> > replace empathy.
I wholeheartedly concur, +10^23.
> I don't see why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be
> there. Why do you want to use a psychological term only use by a group of
> the population in a code of **conduct**? Last proposal I did define what
> you seems to expect from the others without either using the term of trust
> or empathy. I don't see any reason about using a vague term known to be
> conflicting in its resolution. A code of conduct should only be a framework
> for the community, not a way to transform it in a club.
>
> - benoit.
I think we’ve reached the limit on discussing further in this thread. We seem
to have 1 repeated dissenting opinion about the precise usage of empathy, and
about 6 others who are content with the current phrasing.
Either we use alternate wording, or we stick with what we’ve got. Where to next?
—
Dave Cottlehuber
dch@jsonified.com
Sent from my Couch
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 8:59 AM, Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org> wrote:
> Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
>
This is not a capacity. Just a feeling that you are able to. A behaviorist
assumption by the way.
>
> The first order of empathy is recognising that you can never know
> another's emotional state, but to be open for signs that tell you.
>
So if no sign give you any sign about its emotions, how are doing it? Like
simply just giving up, then later (sometimes month) coming formally or
informally telling you were not empathetic. Which also show a sign of a
lack of empathy and trust with the other. Who is lacking the more of
empathy in that case?
>
> I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking out
> for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve
> conflict amicably.
> One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example, notice
> how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first time. We
> take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work
> around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously.
>
> The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic
> medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even more.
>
> I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth
> capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and can't
> replace empathy.
>
>
I don't see why you have to use the term "empathy" and why it has to be
there. Why do you want to use a psychological term only use by a group of
the population in a code of **conduct**? Last proposal I did define what
you seems to expect from the others without either using the term of trust
or empathy. I don't see any reason about using a vague term known to be
conflicting in its resolution. A code of conduct should only be a framework
for the community, not a way to transform it in a club.
- benoit.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
Empathy is the capacity to recognise emotions of others.
The first order of empathy is recognising that you can never know another's emotional state, but to be open for signs that tell you.
I'd like for this community to be the baseline of interaction: looking out for each other in order to avoid misunderstanding and help to resolve conflict amicably.
One can very well be emphatic towards total strangers. For example, notice how we treat people differently, when they post here for the first time. We take into account, that they haven't been accustomed to how things work around here. That's empathy in action, unambiguously.
The fact that empathy is harder to practice in a written, electronic medium makes me want to put empathy front and centre into culture even more.
I like your point about trust and best intentions and that's worth capturing, if we don't have it yet, but that's a separate point and can't replace empathy.
Best
Jan
--
> On 21.07.2014, at 04:56, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>> I am +1 on including empathy and -1 on removing it.
>>
>> Empathy is difficult (perhaps one of the most difficult things to do
>> as a human, behind perhaps forgiveness) but it's also the most
>> important thing that we're looking for on the project. Doubly so
>> because we're a loose, distributed team.
>
> Empathy is just the feeling that you understand the other and then be able
> to share with other. Ie something prone to conflict. You can't be empathic
> with someone you don't know. For example you will have hard time to be
> empathic with me since you don't know what I did today, what I do, if i
> had hard time, If I am in the middle of a crisis, badly slept, etc. You
> don't know nothing about the other, only what he wants you to know about
> him and his public appearance. And that's really true over mail/irc/im.
>
> The more important thing for the project is to feel the best about the
> other and that (s)he has the best intention for the project. What is
> generally defined as trust. I don't want to have someone taking all the
> precautions possibles, hiding his frustration just because eventually a
> critic can be badly taken. Until a critic is about the code, the
> documentation, the project, there is nothing bad to say that a change is
> really bad, eventually stupid. If you trust the other you know it's not
> about you. The other way, because eventually the other think he could be
> empathetic, you don't know. And the frustration will stay around
> eventually. And again who is the more empathetic in a discussion? How lack
> of empathy will be defined?
>
> Anyway I don't want to discuss about psychology. I don't think we should
> base a code of conduct on a psychology term prone to conflict. It should be
> neutral and precise. Let's not introduce another concept then (even if I
> don't think honesty is a concept...) . I would simply replace the whole
> paragraph by:
>
> Be welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve conflict,
>> assume good intentions of each others. We may all experience some
>> frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into
>> a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or
>> threatened is not a productive one. We should be respectful when dealing
>> with other community members as well as with people outside our
>> community.
>
>
>
> I don't see any reason to use the word empathetic at all. For those who
> think that term has any sense, the whole sentence includes it. I don''t see
> any reason to use a sensitive term in a Code Of Conduct that advocates
> openness and diversity.
>
> - benoit.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Jason Smith <ja...@gmail.com>.
On Mon, Jul 21, 2014 at 9:56 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Anyway I don't want to discuss about psychology. I don't think we should
> base a code of conduct on a psychology term prone to conflict. It should be
> neutral and precise.
>
Le mieux, c'est l'ennemi du bien.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> I am +1 on including empathy and -1 on removing it.
>
> Empathy is difficult (perhaps one of the most difficult things to do
> as a human, behind perhaps forgiveness) but it's also the most
> important thing that we're looking for on the project. Doubly so
> because we're a loose, distributed team.
>
>
Empathy is just the feeling that you understand the other and then be able
to share with other. Ie something prone to conflict. You can't be empathic
with someone you don't know. For example you will have hard time to be
empathic with me since you don't know what I did today, what I do, if i
had hard time, If I am in the middle of a crisis, badly slept, etc. You
don't know nothing about the other, only what he wants you to know about
him and his public appearance. And that's really true over mail/irc/im.
The more important thing for the project is to feel the best about the
other and that (s)he has the best intention for the project. What is
generally defined as trust. I don't want to have someone taking all the
precautions possibles, hiding his frustration just because eventually a
critic can be badly taken. Until a critic is about the code, the
documentation, the project, there is nothing bad to say that a change is
really bad, eventually stupid. If you trust the other you know it's not
about you. The other way, because eventually the other think he could be
empathetic, you don't know. And the frustration will stay around
eventually. And again who is the more empathetic in a discussion? How lack
of empathy will be defined?
Anyway I don't want to discuss about psychology. I don't think we should
base a code of conduct on a psychology term prone to conflict. It should be
neutral and precise. Let's not introduce another concept then (even if I
don't think honesty is a concept...) . I would simply replace the whole
paragraph by:
Be welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve conflict,
> assume good intentions of each others. We may all experience some
> frustration from time to time, but we do not allow frustration to turn into
> a personal attack. A community where people feel uncomfortable or
> threatened is not a productive one. We should be respectful when dealing
> with other community members as well as with people outside our
> community.
I don't see any reason to use the word empathetic at all. For those who
think that term has any sense, the whole sentence includes it. I don''t see
any reason to use a sensitive term in a Code Of Conduct that advocates
openness and diversity.
- benoit.
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
I am +1 on including empathy and -1 on removing it.
Empathy is difficult (perhaps one of the most difficult things to do
as a human, behind perhaps forgiveness) but it's also the most
important thing that we're looking for on the project. Doubly so
because we're a loose, distributed team.
On 19 July 2014 19:46, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> Great, thanks. I think we all want the COC to be as clear as possible, looking forward to your suggestions.
>
> B.
>
> On 19 Jul 2014, at 18:11, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
>> <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word "empathy"? If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the intent? That does not include removing it and replacing it with different virtues like honesty.
>>
>> I will think about an alternate wording over the week-end.
>>
>> I've not yes decided if it is a reason for me to veto the whole
>> proposal since I am agree with other points. The sure thing right now
>> is that I would prefer to base a COC without potential for a conflict.
>>
>> - benoit
>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
Great, thanks. I think we all want the COC to be as clear as possible, looking forward to your suggestions.
B.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 18:11, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
> <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word "empathy"? If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the intent? That does not include removing it and replacing it with different virtues like honesty.
>
> I will think about an alternate wording over the week-end.
>
> I've not yes decided if it is a reason for me to veto the whole
> proposal since I am agree with other points. The sure thing right now
> is that I would prefer to base a COC without potential for a conflict.
>
> - benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 5:13 PM, Robert Samuel Newson
<rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word "empathy"? If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the intent? That does not include removing it and replacing it with different virtues like honesty.
I will think about an alternate wording over the week-end.
I've not yes decided if it is a reason for me to veto the whole
proposal since I am agree with other points. The sure thing right now
is that I would prefer to base a COC without potential for a conflict.
- benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
"Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."
Expecting people to have empathy is not vague. Expecting people to be honest is also not vague. I’m sure we all *have* empathy and that it’s a perfectly reasonable requirement of our community members.
I think your issue is not that empathy is vaguely defined but that it is difficult to practice well when participants are remote. And I completely agree with you. It is hard to read other people’s emotion states. I’ve certainly erred in that judgement myself (and not just once!). That is not the same as saying we shouldn’t try, or that, if we fail, that no mistake was really made because the term is so vague.
It might be that the term "empathy" is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant a replacement but I’m mindful that few words are rigidly defined, most carry two or more senses. Attempts to coin new terms with precisely one meaning have also failed ("refactor", to name one, has lost its sole reason for existing through constant misuse).
I’m not as confident as you that "honest" is not vague. You might think that because your peer group broadly agree on its meaning, but that’s obviously not the same thing at all.
Summary: Acknowledging that one cannot always accurately know the emotional state of another is not an argument against empathy, it is an argument for empathy.
To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word "empathy"? If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the intent? That does not include removing it and replacing it with different virtues like honesty.
B.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 15:47, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
>> has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
>> community where tempers have flared.
>
> You don't have any possibility to know what is the emotional state of
> the other. Except if you live in his head. These are just guess and
> prone to error. Especially via mail.
>
>>
>> If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
>> at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
>
> I don't like relying on something vague and prone to conflict. Which
> one will be the more empathic in your view. The one that follow the
> opinion or the one that doesn't think you are empathetic with him? Who
> will be the more empathetic?
>
> Honesty however is not a vague concept. Neither is trust ie the
> belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective,
> etc.
>
> where empathy is: the feeling that you understand and share another
> person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone
> else's feelings.
>
> The feeling...
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
> has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
> community where tempers have flared.
You don't have any possibility to know what is the emotional state of
the other. Except if you live in his head. These are just guess and
prone to error. Especially via mail.
>
> If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
> at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
I don't like relying on something vague and prone to conflict. Which
one will be the more empathic in your view. The one that follow the
opinion or the one that doesn't think you are empathetic with him? Who
will be the more empathetic?
Honesty however is not a vague concept. Neither is trust ie the
belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective,
etc.
where empathy is: the feeling that you understand and share another
person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone
else's feelings.
The feeling...
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
Have to agree with Wohali here. "empathy" seems no more vague than "trust". Which cultures are vague on the meaning of empathy? I think we are using the word in its commonly understood meaning so, given dictionaries can define this, I don’t see a barrier to using the word.
B.
On 19 Jul 2014, at 14:30, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
> has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
> community where tempers have flared.
>
> If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
> at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
>
> -Joan
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:03:31 AM
> Subject: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
>
> Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
> really busy these days.
>
>
> I don't have access to the confluence website neither I see a simple way to
> patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
>
> Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
>> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others. We
>> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow
>> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel
>> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
>> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people
>> outside our community.
>
>
>
> Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture) by
> honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient"
> are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
> interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at the
> EUC, but never had time to post it here...
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Also, I'd just like to point out that the CoC is not being voted on at the
same time as the Bylaws. However, that vote will be called immediately after
the bylaws are passed, so this discussion is timely. Just making clear that
a +1 vote on the Bylaws has no bearing on your vote for the CoC.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 9:30:28 AM
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
community where tempers have flared.
If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:03:31 AM
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
really busy these days.
I don't have access to the confluence website neither I see a simple way to
patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others. We
> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow
> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel
> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people
> outside our community.
Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture) by
honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient"
are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at the
EUC, but never had time to post it here...
Thoughts?
- benoit
Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of others
has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in this
community where tempers have flared.
If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this concept
at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the colon.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bc...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Saturday, July 19, 2014 5:03:31 AM
Subject: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Sorry for the delay. I planned to propose that change sooner, but I am
really busy these days.
I don't have access to the confluence website neither I see a simple way to
patch it so here is my proposal on the point 2. I would replace it with:
Be honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient: We work together to resolve
> conflict, assume good intentions, and do our best to trust each others. We
> may all experience some frustration from time to time, but we do not allow
> frustration to turn into a personal attack. A community where people feel
> uncomfortable or threatened is not a productive one. We should be
> respectful when dealing with other community members as well as with people
> outside our community.
Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many culture) by
honesty and trust. Imo the words "honest, welcoming, friendly, and patient"
are defining what could be empathy in many cultures and doesn't rely on
interpretation. The idea came from a conversation with Katie Miller at the
EUC, but never had time to post it here...
Thoughts?
- benoit