You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@couchdb.apache.org by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> on 2014/06/04 21:51:03 UTC
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Hi,
I have an idea that I like to share with you about bylaws and code of
conduct. I'll be short:
http://500px.com/terms
Here I'll be a bit longer: the idea is to provide shortener summary of
all these statements on the page. Easy to read, easy to understand the
base things, easy to reference, no need to dive into loooong texts
searching for simple things, unless you're seeking for details or
wording. We can launch short version as an whole page ideas quiescence
in any time while keep fighting for words, terms and phrases in full
texts without interrupting the process.
What do you think about?
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Please review our propose bylaws:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017
>
> I'd like a few more eyeballs on this before I move to a vote.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On 5 May 2014 18:35, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2014 10:54, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure to see the interest of these by-laws. They look redundant
>>> to the the *practices* documented inside the apache foundation
>>> documentation:
>>
>> The bylaws of the foundation are here:
>>
>> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html
>>
>> They cover a completely different set of things at the foundation
>> level. And say very little about how projects must function.
>>
>> The resources you linked to are, at best, recommendations. They are
>> not binding. And in some cases they are contradictory. These represent
>> past efforts to distil common practice across many different projects.
>>
>> What our bylaws are doing is saying that we have specifically chosen
>> these interpretations, and that as a community we consider them
>> binding.
>>
>>> - In 4.1 : the sentence "Objecting too far down the road will cause
>>> problems.", and in 4.2 "If lazy consensus is not possible, you can
>>> move to a discussion" .
>>>
>>> The passage from a lazy consensus to a discussion is not clear. How it
>>> is decided? Who is deciding it?
>>
>> Good catch.
>>
>> I have updated the wording to:
>>
>> "If lazy consensus fails (i.e. someone objects) you can start a
>> discussion or you can abandon the proposal."
>>
>> Does this address your concerns?
>>
>>> - In 4.2, there is "Proposals should be explained clearly and come with
>>> adequate justification. Disagreements should be constructive and
>>> ideally come with alternative proposals. The goal is to reach a positive
>>> outcome for the project, not convince others of your opinion." .
>>>
>>> Sorry but I don't understand that part. How can you expect that people
>>> deeply attached to a project can't have an opinion on how it should
>>> works or be seen by the others? Also what is the point of a discussion
>>> if it's not to convince others that your idea is OK?
>>
>> Interesting comment.
>>
>> If you enter into a discussion with the objective of trying to
>> convince the other person, and they do the same, all that will happen
>> is that you argue with each other until one person runs out of energy.
>>
>> I am more interested in the sort of discussion where both people put
>> aside preconceived notions, swap facts, debate points, and
>> cooperatively work towards a greater shared understanding of what is
>> being discussed.
>>
>> The goal then is not "winning" (i.e. convincing the other) but
>> expanding knowledge. Even if that means that you have been convinced
>> by the other person.
>>
>> Two people spend an hour arguing, and person A convinces person B of
>> their opinion. Typically, we would say that person A has won.
>>
>> Try modelling that discussion so that knowledge and time spent are
>> considered valuable, instead of pride. Both A and B spend time, but
>> only B receives new knowledge. So who is the real winner?
>>
>> This is important for the project because the first type of discussion
>> is not very valuable for us. The second is. That's why I put that the
>> end goal should be to reach a positive outcome for the project.
>>
>>> Rather what is a bad opinion for the project (i.e. an expression of an
>>> idea) there? How do you put the limit?
>>
>> It's not opinions that are bad. Instead: modes of discussion.
>>
>>> - In 3.3 you added the notion of having "good people skills" for
>>> commiters. How do you define "having good people skills"? This notion
>>> completely depends on the culture of the people interacting in the
>>> project. I propose to remove that sentence. It suffices to say that
>>> all contributors of the projects obey to the Code Of Conduct and make
>>> the Code Of Conduct enough generic.
>>
>> How do you define good technical skills? This stuff is always
>> dependant on individual interpretation. My goal here is to make it
>> explicit that as a project we value people skills over technical
>> skills.
>>
>> I would rather have someone who is helpful and cooperative on our
>> lists and who is only an average programmer, than someone who is
>> unhelpful and uncooperative who is an excellent programmer.
>>
>> This is not usually the case for OSS projects. But I believe it is
>> important. Which is why I want to bake it inout our bylaws.
>>
>>> - What about having the PMC members renewed each years by a vote of the
>>> community? So they will be the choice of the community? PMC members
>>> could be proposed during a period by the community and then a vote will
>>> happen.
>>
>> What benefits would this bring?
>>
>>> - The same for a chair. We could make it renewable more often. For
>>> example each 3 or 5 years.
>>
>> I've included this in the draft already. I am proposing that the chair
>> is reelected every year.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:47 AM, Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> > community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> > be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> > people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> > people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> > I won't bring to bear on this list.
>
> I'll quote myself:
>
> Being polite is a matter of etiquette; it's about respect, and being
> considerate of people's feelings, culture, and values. Polite and
> mannerly imply consideration for others and the adherence to
> conventional social standards of good behavior.
>
> This definition is from English Oxford dictionary explicitly conflicts with
> "being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage people
> who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that", so
> that's NOT OK or someone didn't understand words he says. Otherwise I
> could say the same about any statement of CoC: "sorry, I don't see any
> harassments, sexual attacks or disrespect in my words - you imagined
> all these problems by yourself because you psychologically prone to
> see these problems". But we all know that's not right way to go.
>
> Anyway, won't to insist on anything: just wanted to point on idea to
> provide simple and short rules description for people who knows what
> they doing and saying and who are on the same wave as we are. As for
> others the detailed explanation below is always available below which
> defines what we means under "being polite".
>
>
+1
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
bylaws)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Look up "damning with faint praise." That is technically polite but is
unacceptable behaviour for our project. It is a way of acting that, on
the surface, is completely "considerate of people's feelings, culture
and values" leaving "plausible denyability" but has malicious intent.
Something that is on the surface polite but has undertones of disrespect
is unacceptable.
-Joan
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 01:47:11PM +0400, Alexander Shorin wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> > Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> > community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> > be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> > people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> > people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> > I won't bring to bear on this list.
>
> I'll quote myself:
>
> Being polite is a matter of etiquette; it's about respect, and being
> considerate of people's feelings, culture, and values. Polite and
> mannerly imply consideration for others and the adherence to
> conventional social standards of good behavior.
>
> This definition is from English Oxford dictionary explicitly conflicts with
> "being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage people
> who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that", so
> that's NOT OK or someone didn't understand words he says. Otherwise I
> could say the same about any statement of CoC: "sorry, I don't see any
> harassments, sexual attacks or disrespect in my words - you imagined
> all these problems by yourself because you psychologically prone to
> see these problems". But we all know that's not right way to go.
>
> Anyway, won't to insist on anything: just wanted to point on idea to
> provide simple and short rules description for people who knows what
> they doing and saying and who are on the same wave as we are. As for
> others the detailed explanation below is always available below which
> defines what we means under "being polite".
>
>
> --
> ,,,^..^,,,
--
Joan Touzet | joant@atypical.net | wohali everywhere else
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> I won't bring to bear on this list.
I'll quote myself:
Being polite is a matter of etiquette; it's about respect, and being
considerate of people's feelings, culture, and values. Polite and
mannerly imply consideration for others and the adherence to
conventional social standards of good behavior.
This definition is from English Oxford dictionary explicitly conflicts with
"being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage people
who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that", so
that's NOT OK or someone didn't understand words he says. Otherwise I
could say the same about any statement of CoC: "sorry, I don't see any
harassments, sexual attacks or disrespect in my words - you imagined
all these problems by yourself because you psychologically prone to
see these problems". But we all know that's not right way to go.
Anyway, won't to insist on anything: just wanted to point on idea to
provide simple and short rules description for people who knows what
they doing and saying and who are on the same wave as we are. As for
others the detailed explanation below is always available below which
defines what we means under "being polite".
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
just for the sake sanity, forgetting the "philosophical" approach which is
not totally the point here. I think i would be for having the following
order in handling communities interactions:
CoC > By laws
Where I would relegate the "by laws" as a contributing guide document. I am
actually -0 on the current form.
The content of the current document is ok for me though I would remove the
notion of empathy and simply link to the coc and diversity guidelines
removing any attempts in the future for people to define who is more
empathic than the other. I would also add a part to manage discussions by
themselves and define how/when they should close in a graceful manner. (I
proposed that in an early mail).
Thoughts?
- benoit
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 11:11 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>> From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be
>>> polite.":
>>>
>>> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
>>> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
>>> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
>>>
>>> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
>>> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
>>> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
>>> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
>>> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
>>> I won't bring to bear on this list.
>>>
>>> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
>>> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
>>>
>>
>> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
>> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
>> laws will solve that you're wrong. However only politeness and respect of
>> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though
>> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
>> the other made as a rule, a conduct. Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>> doesn't take in consideration the ego (in its pure definition) of each
>> parts. It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
>> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
>> having people at the same level.
>>
>> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
>> from Huxkley. This paper also summarise it:
>>
>
> huxley of course...
>
>> > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
>>>
>>> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
>>> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
>>> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
>>>
>>> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
>>> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
>>> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
>>> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
>>> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
>>> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
>>> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
>>>
>>> -Joan
>>>
>>
>>
>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about
>> having by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of
>> them. Most of the time by only using a Coc as a way to define the social
>> agreement and a list of guidelines aside on how to manage discussions and
>> other stuff related to the project. Most of the time in the form of an
>> extensive contributing document.
>>
>
>
> I wanted to say "most of the discussions" , all in the communities i am a
> member (even the PSF) or i joined.
>
> - benoit
>
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 10:49 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be
>> polite.":
>>
>> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
>> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
>> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
>>
>> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
>> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
>> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
>> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
>> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
>> I won't bring to bear on this list.
>>
>> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
>> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
>>
>
> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
> laws will solve that you're wrong. However only politeness and respect of
> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though
> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
> the other made as a rule, a conduct. Empathy is too emotionally charged and
> doesn't take in consideration the ego (in its pure definition) of each
> parts. It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
> having people at the same level.
>
> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
> from Huxkley. This paper also summarise it:
>
huxley of course...
> > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
>>
>> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
>> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
>> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
>>
>> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
>> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
>> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
>> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
>> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
>> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
>> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
>>
>> -Joan
>>
>
>
> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having
> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
> Most of the time by only using a Coc as a way to define the social
> agreement and a list of guidelines aside on how to manage discussions and
> other stuff related to the project. Most of the time in the form of an
> extensive contributing document.
>
I wanted to say "most of the discussions" , all in the communities i am a
member (even the PSF) or i joined.
- benoit
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Jan Lehnardt <ja...@apache.org>.
What Joan said.
On 05 Jun 2014, at 12:23 , Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
>> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
>> laws will solve that you're wrong.
>
> CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
> acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
> when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
> exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
> exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
>
>> However only politeness and respect of
>> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though
>> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
>> the other made as a rule, a conduct.
>
> There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
> strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
> *only* word used.
>
>> Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>
> But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
> do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
> approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
> and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
> politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
>
>> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
>> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
>> having people at the same level.
>
> I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
> reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
> interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
> public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
> of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
> have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
>
>> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
>> from Huxkley.I
>
> I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
> all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
> people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
> of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
> critical to supportive discussion.
>
> This paper also summarise it:
>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>
> From that same article:
>
> "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
> who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
> right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
> fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
>
> "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
> Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
> utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
> children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
> it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
> betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
>
> Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
> their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
> lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
> valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
> Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
> code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
> not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
> interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
> If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
> that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
> careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
>
>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having
>> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>
> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
> please propose some text.
>
> --
> Joan Touzet | joant@atypical.net | wohali everywhere else
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org>.
I will add a few bullet points that capture the "spirit" of the
bylaws, but are not concrete enough to be mistaken for rules. Let's
see how that looks and decide whether we want to keep them.
On 5 June 2014 14:01, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I see Benoit’s point about "empathy" though not because it is "emotionally charged" but because it is somewhat ambiguous. I have no objection to the text of item in the CoC which uses the term, though. I am interested in seeing proposed alternate text, though.
>
> B.
>
> P.S As he’s one of my favourite authors, and this is one of his best books (Island is his best), Huxley was no more advocating against empathy than the Savage was advocating for venereal disease.
>
>
> On 5 Jun 2014, at 12:22, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>>> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
>>>> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
>>>> laws will solve that you're wrong.
>>>
>>> CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
>>> acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
>>> when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
>>> exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
>>> exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
>>>
>>>> However only politeness and respect of
>>>> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even
>>> though
>>>> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
>>>> the other made as a rule, a conduct.
>>>
>>> There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
>>> strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
>>> *only* word used.
>>>
>>>> Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>>>
>>> But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
>>> do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
>>> approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
>>> and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
>>> politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
>>>
>>>> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
>>>> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
>>>> having people at the same level.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
>>> reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
>>> interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
>>> public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
>>> of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
>>> have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
>>
>>
>>>> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
>>>> from Huxkley.I
>>>
>>> I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
>>> all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
>>> people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
>>> of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
>>> critical to supportive discussion.
>>>
>>> This paper also summarise it:
>>>>
>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>>>
>>> From that same article:
>>>
>>> "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
>>> who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
>>> right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
>>> fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
>>>
>>> "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
>>> Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
>>> utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
>>> children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
>>> it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
>>> betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
>>>
>>> Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
>>> their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
>>> lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
>>> valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
>>> Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
>>> code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
>>> not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
>>> interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
>>> If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
>>> that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
>>> careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about
>>> having
>>>> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>>>
>>> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
>>> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
>>> please propose some text.
>>>
>>>
>> Who will be the more empathic in these discussions. The first one that
>> denounce a lack of empathy? Or the other one that disagree with the other?
>> Will it be because most active participant will declare it? See using a
>> vague concept of emotional awareness won't prevent the discussion of this
>> awareness Of who is the more aware. Where respect, trust of the other,
>> honesty, beeing polite make sure that people exchange in confidence. In
>> short thinking that the other discuss only for the good Which also imply
>> that you have to understand that the other may not be aware you're in a bad
>> mood and doesn't have too. I am not speaking about being logical or beeing
>> a robot but to respect the other and know he can disagree. Which imply to
>> let him his chance, trusting him, that he is thinking the good for the
>> project. People don't have to be your friends to speak about the project.
>> Especially over a mail or a chat.
>>
>> Anyway no need to discuss more. I wanted to point the danger of introducing
>> this vague concept of empathy. I see why it's introduced, but i am worried
>> it endanger more the community than anything in near future.
>>
>> I already proposed some additions to the text which can be
>> reviewed/discussed before i add anything but I will provide a diff
>> reflecting my thinking until monday.
>>
>>
>> - benoit.
>
--
Noah Slater
https://twitter.com/nslater
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 10:55 AM, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Sorry for the delay. 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 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.
Sorry the full text is:
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.
Opening a new thread about that to discuss the proposal.
- benoit
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
Sorry for the delay. 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 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.
Note that I replaced empathy (which is a vague concept in many
culture) by honest. 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...
Is this OK for you?
The rest is fine for me.
- benoit
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:01 PM, Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org> wrote:
> I see Benoit’s point about "empathy" though not because it is "emotionally charged" but because it is somewhat ambiguous. I have no objection to the text of item in the CoC which uses the term, though. I am interested in seeing proposed alternate text, though.
>
> B.
>
> P.S As he’s one of my favourite authors, and this is one of his best books (Island is his best), Huxley was no more advocating against empathy than the Savage was advocating for venereal disease.
>
>
> On 5 Jun 2014, at 12:22, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>>> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
>>>> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
>>>> laws will solve that you're wrong.
>>>
>>> CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
>>> acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
>>> when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
>>> exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
>>> exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
>>>
>>>> However only politeness and respect of
>>>> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even
>>> though
>>>> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
>>>> the other made as a rule, a conduct.
>>>
>>> There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
>>> strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
>>> *only* word used.
>>>
>>>> Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>>>
>>> But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
>>> do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
>>> approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
>>> and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
>>> politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
>>>
>>>> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
>>>> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
>>>> having people at the same level.
>>>
>>> I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
>>> reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
>>> interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
>>> public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
>>> of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
>>> have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
>>
>>
>>>> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
>>>> from Huxkley.I
>>>
>>> I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
>>> all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
>>> people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
>>> of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
>>> critical to supportive discussion.
>>>
>>> This paper also summarise it:
>>>>
>>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>>>
>>> From that same article:
>>>
>>> "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
>>> who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
>>> right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
>>> fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
>>>
>>> "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
>>> Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
>>> utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
>>> children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
>>> it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
>>> betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
>>>
>>> Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
>>> their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
>>> lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
>>> valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
>>> Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
>>> code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
>>> not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
>>> interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
>>> If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
>>> that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
>>> careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about
>>> having
>>>> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>>>
>>> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
>>> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
>>> please propose some text.
>>>
>>>
>> Who will be the more empathic in these discussions. The first one that
>> denounce a lack of empathy? Or the other one that disagree with the other?
>> Will it be because most active participant will declare it? See using a
>> vague concept of emotional awareness won't prevent the discussion of this
>> awareness Of who is the more aware. Where respect, trust of the other,
>> honesty, beeing polite make sure that people exchange in confidence. In
>> short thinking that the other discuss only for the good Which also imply
>> that you have to understand that the other may not be aware you're in a bad
>> mood and doesn't have too. I am not speaking about being logical or beeing
>> a robot but to respect the other and know he can disagree. Which imply to
>> let him his chance, trusting him, that he is thinking the good for the
>> project. People don't have to be your friends to speak about the project.
>> Especially over a mail or a chat.
>>
>> Anyway no need to discuss more. I wanted to point the danger of introducing
>> this vague concept of empathy. I see why it's introduced, but i am worried
>> it endanger more the community than anything in near future.
>>
>> I already proposed some additions to the text which can be
>> reviewed/discussed before i add anything but I will provide a diff
>> reflecting my thinking until monday.
>>
>>
>> - benoit.
>
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Robert Samuel Newson <rn...@apache.org>.
I see Benoit’s point about "empathy" though not because it is "emotionally charged" but because it is somewhat ambiguous. I have no objection to the text of item in the CoC which uses the term, though. I am interested in seeing proposed alternate text, though.
B.
P.S As he’s one of my favourite authors, and this is one of his best books (Island is his best), Huxley was no more advocating against empathy than the Savage was advocating for venereal disease.
On 5 Jun 2014, at 12:22, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
>>> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
>>> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
>>> laws will solve that you're wrong.
>>
>> CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
>> acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
>> when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
>> exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
>> exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
>>
>>> However only politeness and respect of
>>> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even
>> though
>>> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
>>> the other made as a rule, a conduct.
>>
>> There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
>> strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
>> *only* word used.
>>
>>> Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>>
>> But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
>> do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
>> approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
>> and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
>> politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
>>
>>> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
>>> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
>>> having people at the same level.
>>
>> I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
>> reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
>> interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
>> public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
>> of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
>> have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
>
>
>>> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
>>> from Huxkley.I
>>
>> I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
>> all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
>> people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
>> of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
>> critical to supportive discussion.
>>
>> This paper also summarise it:
>>>
>> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>>
>> From that same article:
>>
>> "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
>> who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
>> right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
>> fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
>>
>> "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
>> Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
>> utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
>> children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
>> it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
>> betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
>>
>> Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
>> their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
>> lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
>> valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
>> Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
>> code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
>> not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
>> interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
>> If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
>> that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
>> careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
>
>
>
>>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about
>> having
>>> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>>
>> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
>> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
>> please propose some text.
>>
>>
> Who will be the more empathic in these discussions. The first one that
> denounce a lack of empathy? Or the other one that disagree with the other?
> Will it be because most active participant will declare it? See using a
> vague concept of emotional awareness won't prevent the discussion of this
> awareness Of who is the more aware. Where respect, trust of the other,
> honesty, beeing polite make sure that people exchange in confidence. In
> short thinking that the other discuss only for the good Which also imply
> that you have to understand that the other may not be aware you're in a bad
> mood and doesn't have too. I am not speaking about being logical or beeing
> a robot but to respect the other and know he can disagree. Which imply to
> let him his chance, trusting him, that he is thinking the good for the
> project. People don't have to be your friends to speak about the project.
> Especially over a mail or a chat.
>
> Anyway no need to discuss more. I wanted to point the danger of introducing
> this vague concept of empathy. I see why it's introduced, but i am worried
> it endanger more the community than anything in near future.
>
> I already proposed some additions to the text which can be
> reviewed/discussed before i add anything but I will provide a diff
> reflecting my thinking until monday.
>
>
> - benoit.
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 12:23 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> > This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
> > thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
> > laws will solve that you're wrong.
>
> CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
> acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
> when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
> exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
> exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
>
> > However only politeness and respect of
> > the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even
> though
> > who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
> > the other made as a rule, a conduct.
>
> There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
> strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
> *only* word used.
>
> > Empathy is too emotionally charged and
>
> But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
> do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
> approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
> and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
> politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
>
> > It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
> > differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
> > having people at the same level.
>
> I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
> reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
> interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
> public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
> of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
> have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
> > There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
> > from Huxkley.I
>
> I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
> all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
> people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
> of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
> critical to supportive discussion.
>
> This paper also summarise it:
> >
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>
> From that same article:
>
> "That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
> who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
> right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
> fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
>
> "Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
> Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
> utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
> children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
> it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
> betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
>
> Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
> their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
> lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
> valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
> Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
> code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
> not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
> interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
> If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
> that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
> careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
> > A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about
> having
> > by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>
> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
> please propose some text.
>
>
Who will be the more empathic in these discussions. The first one that
denounce a lack of empathy? Or the other one that disagree with the other?
Will it be because most active participant will declare it? See using a
vague concept of emotional awareness won't prevent the discussion of this
awareness Of who is the more aware. Where respect, trust of the other,
honesty, beeing polite make sure that people exchange in confidence. In
short thinking that the other discuss only for the good Which also imply
that you have to understand that the other may not be aware you're in a bad
mood and doesn't have too. I am not speaking about being logical or beeing
a robot but to respect the other and know he can disagree. Which imply to
let him his chance, trusting him, that he is thinking the good for the
project. People don't have to be your friends to speak about the project.
Especially over a mail or a chat.
Anyway no need to discuss more. I wanted to point the danger of introducing
this vague concept of empathy. I see why it's introduced, but i am worried
it endanger more the community than anything in near future.
I already proposed some additions to the text which can be
reviewed/discussed before i add anything but I will provide a diff
reflecting my thinking until monday.
- benoit.
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 2:23 PM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
>> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having
>> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
>
> I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
> strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
> please propose some text.
No need to reduce, just to provide TL;DR version as 500px did. That's
was initial idea (: But I see nobody feels good for it.
We have in anyway provide explanation of good conduct like license
agreements have to provide very detailed explanation of rights and
responsibilities.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
bylaws)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
On Thu, Jun 05, 2014 at 10:49:49AM +0200, Benoit Chesneau wrote:
> This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
> thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
> laws will solve that you're wrong.
CoC aren't about stopping people. They are for outlining what is
acceptable and uancceptable behaviour. They are a ruler against which,
when conflict occurs, human action can be compared. Just because thye
exist will not stop people from acting badly, but that does not mean the
exercise of writing them or enforcing them is pointless.
> However only politeness and respect of
> the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though
> who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
> the other made as a rule, a conduct.
There is the concept of respect already in the text. If people feel
strongly they want to add politeness, fine, but it should not be the
*only* word used.
> Empathy is too emotionally charged and
But humans are emotional. We need text in the CoC that addresses what to
do when people get emotional. Respect is often limited to a logical
approach to a situation and does not begin to cover emotional awareness
and understanding. As a result we need to go farther than just
politeness or respect and include the concept of empathy.
> It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
> differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
> having people at the same level.
I'm not sure I follow here. Emotional awareness is not control, it is a
reminder to people in the community that emotion is a part of human
interaction, and that it must be taken into consideration when making
public statements. Working positively necessarily requires understanding
of the emotional state of those you're talking to; we cannot presume to
have interaction devoid of normal (or abnormal!) human behaviour.
> There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
> from Huxkley.I
I have indeed read Huxley. I am not suggesting that everyone be happy
all the time, or that we avoid conflict, or that we intentionally drug
people into positive mental attitude or browbeat people into acceptance
of everything. I am stating that recognition of emotional state is
critical to supportive discussion.
This paper also summarise it:
> http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>From that same article:
"That’s not a call for a world without empathy. The problem with those
who are devoid of empathy is that, although they may recognize what’s
right, they have no motivation to act upon it. Some spark of
fellow-feeling is needed to convert intelligence into action."
"Where empathy really does matter is in our personal relationships.
Nobody wants to live like Thomas Gradgrind—Charles Dickens’s caricature
utilitarian, who treats all interactions, including those with his
children, in explicitly economic terms. Empathy is what makes us human;
it’s what makes us both subjects and objects of moral concern. Empathy
betrays us only when we take it as a moral guide."
Again I am not suggesting that list members *only* use empathy to guide
their moral compass. I am stating that we cannot operate without empathy
lest callous attitudes defined on purely logical approaches trample
valid concerns that are, at their foundation, emotional and not logical.
Just because it's software doesn't mean that everything about it, in
code, documentation, design and usage, is also just 1s and 0s. We are
not robots, nor are we Star Trek's Mr. Spock. We should not aspire to
interact on this mailing list as if we were purely emotionless beings.
If that is true, then awareness of others' emotional state, and use of
that to be open, welcoming, friendly, patient, collaborative, concise,
careful in how we speak and yes, respectful is critical.
> A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having
> by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
I am -0 on that but -1 on reducing it to a single sentence. If you feel
strongly about having a shorter version of the bylaws or of the CoC,
please propose some text.
--
Joan Touzet | joant@atypical.net | wohali everywhere else
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 8:17 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
>
> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be
> polite.":
>
> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
>
> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> I won't bring to bear on this list.
>
> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
>
This question always raised the question about who is right on naming
thing. Who has more empathy than the others. If you really think that by
laws will solve that you're wrong. However only politeness and respect of
the other will make it possible to discuss between each other. Even though
who disagree with. And this is why it's important to have the respect of
the other made as a rule, a conduct. Empathy is too emotionally charged and
doesn't take in consideration the ego (in its pure definition) of each
parts. It is also creating a new way to control people and reject the
differences by applying a varnish on it, saying that diversity is about
having people at the same level.
There is a lot of literature about it. First by reading "brave new world"
from Huxkley. This paper also summarise it:
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/atlarge/2013/05/20/130520crat_atlarge_bloom?currentPage=all
>
> > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
>
> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
>
> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
>
> -Joan
>
A quick note about that but all the discussion in communities about having
by-laws and rules have finished by agreeing in a short version of them.
Most of the time by only using a Coc as a way to define the social
agreement and a list of guidelines aside on how to manage discussions and
other stuff related to the project. Most of the time in the form of an
extensive contributing document.
- benoit
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Andy Wenk <an...@nms.de>.
Alex thanks for bringing up this idea (again like Joan already followed
this approach).
I see problems on both sides.
* reading a long text is exhausting - especially for non native speaking
people. So the danger that one will not read it is high.
* bylaws packed in a short text is dangerous because, why should one write
a long text, when one can write it also in a short text?
So what is the bigger problem? Assuming a person is not following the
bylaws / CoC (it's mixed in the thread above) and we have to "judge" her,
we can say "well, it is written in the bylaws / CoC. If you don't read
them, it's your problem. Please follow them."
Assuming a person is reading the short version and is not following the
bylaws / CoC and we have to "judge" her, he could say "hey I understood it
this way. If that's not correct, you should explain it better".
Imho the bylaws are good as they are. But I can imagine, that we "could
maybe" provide a not official shorter version with a very clear
explanation, that is just a summary and we never rely on the short version
but the long "official" one. Maybe the word "version" is not correct but it
should read "content summary".
I believe this would be very much work to make it really good. I personally
want to stay with the bylaws as they are and would be -0 on a "summary
version".
Cheers
Andy
On 5 June 2014 08:19, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> Oh! One good essay about why "Don't do bad things" isn't enough:
>
> http://satifice.com/octofice/2014/01/01/on-the-dont-do-bad-things-maxim/
>
> -Joan
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
> To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
> Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 2:17:35 AM
> Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
> bylaws)
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
>
> > Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be
> polite.":
>
> Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
> people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
> as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
>
> Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
> community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
> be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
> people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
> people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
> I won't bring to bear on this list.
>
> This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
> harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
>
> > P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
>
> See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
> conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
> and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
>
> I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
> will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
> position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
> polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
> CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
> explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
> proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
>
> -Joan
>
--
Andy Wenk
Hamburg - Germany
RockIt!
http://www.couchdb-buch.de
http://www.pg-praxisbuch.de
GPG fingerprint: C044 8322 9E12 1483 4FEC 9452 B65D 6BE3 9ED3 9588
https://people.apache.org/keys/committer/andywenk.asc
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
bylaws)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
Oh! One good essay about why "Don't do bad things" isn't enough:
http://satifice.com/octofice/2014/01/01/on-the-dont-do-bad-things-maxim/
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joan Touzet" <wo...@apache.org>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Thursday, June 5, 2014 2:17:35 AM
Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
> Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be polite.":
Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
I won't bring to bear on this list.
This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
> P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
-Joan
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
bylaws)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
> Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be polite.":
Being polite is insufficiently rich to describe what we expect from
people. I also explained why I didn't use polite in a previous thread
as well (or it might have been IRC, I forget now.)
Proof by counterexample: I have been involved in a private gaming
community for a long time where the only rule was "be polite" / "don't
be an asshole". Recently it has been made painfully clear that, to some
people, being polite means it's OK to be sexist, racist, disparage
people who don't agree with you, villainize foreigners, and worse that
I won't bring to bear on this list.
This is even worse when people are "polite" on a mailing list but still
harbor ill will behind a surface of politeness.
> P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
See above. Saying "be polite" is only the start of a longer
conversation, one we've been having for years now in various places --
and one that shows that not everyone has the same level of understanding.
I am -1 on any reductionist single-sentence approach as it
will simply leave too many loopholes. We should not be placed in a
position where we must have semantic arguments about what I think
polite means vs. what you think polite means. Given the difficulties
CouchDB has had as a community over the years, we must necessarily be
explicit in the list of what we do and do not tolerate. If that list
proves insufficient we need to grow it over time.
-Joan
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Posted by Alexander Shorin <kx...@gmail.com>.
On Thu, Jun 5, 2014 at 6:23 AM, Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org> wrote:
> I believe the response from him (or possibly someone else on the PMC)
> was that people would try and go by the abbreviated rules and never
> read the complete ones.
In this case what would make them read long rules? TL;DR isn't only life motto.
> And that people would either rely on that as
> a loophole, or worse, think our rules were more lax and cause issues.
> This could be unintentional or intentional; either way it allows
> for interpretation on the short rules that could cause issues.
Well, mostly all CoC points could be replaced by single sentence: "Be polite.":
polite (pəˈlaɪt) adj
1. showing regard for others, in manners, speech, behaviour, etc; courteous
Being polite is a matter of etiquette; it's about respect, and being
considerate of people's feelings, culture, and values. Polite and
mannerly imply consideration for others and the adherence to
conventional social standards of good behavior.
Simple and clear what the community expects from you.
P.S. the word "polite" mentioned zero times on code of conduct page.
--
,,,^..^,,,
Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project
bylaws)
Posted by Joan Touzet <wo...@apache.org>.
I'd suggested something like this earlier to Noah. I'm now -0
on the idea now.
I believe the response from him (or possibly someone else on the PMC)
was that people would try and go by the abbreviated rules and never
read the complete ones. And that people would either rely on that as
a loophole, or worse, think our rules were more lax and cause issues.
This could be unintentional or intentional; either way it allows
for interpretation on the short rules that could cause issues.
-Joan
----- Original Message -----
From: "Alexander Shorin" <kx...@gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Sent: Wednesday, June 4, 2014 3:51:03 PM
Subject: Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Hi,
I have an idea that I like to share with you about bylaws and code of
conduct. I'll be short:
http://500px.com/terms
Here I'll be a bit longer: the idea is to provide shortener summary of
all these statements on the page. Easy to read, easy to understand the
base things, easy to reference, no need to dive into loooong texts
searching for simple things, unless you're seeking for details or
wording. We can launch short version as an whole page ideas quiescence
in any time while keep fighting for words, terms and phrases in full
texts without interrupting the process.
What do you think about?
--
,,,^..^,,,
On Wed, May 7, 2014 at 11:07 PM, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> Please review our propose bylaws:
>
> https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=40511017
>
> I'd like a few more eyeballs on this before I move to a vote.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
> On 5 May 2014 18:35, Noah Slater <ns...@apache.org> wrote:
>> On 5 May 2014 10:54, Benoit Chesneau <bc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I am not sure to see the interest of these by-laws. They look redundant
>>> to the the *practices* documented inside the apache foundation
>>> documentation:
>>
>> The bylaws of the foundation are here:
>>
>> http://apache.org/foundation/bylaws.html
>>
>> They cover a completely different set of things at the foundation
>> level. And say very little about how projects must function.
>>
>> The resources you linked to are, at best, recommendations. They are
>> not binding. And in some cases they are contradictory. These represent
>> past efforts to distil common practice across many different projects.
>>
>> What our bylaws are doing is saying that we have specifically chosen
>> these interpretations, and that as a community we consider them
>> binding.
>>
>>> - In 4.1 : the sentence "Objecting too far down the road will cause
>>> problems.", and in 4.2 "If lazy consensus is not possible, you can
>>> move to a discussion" .
>>>
>>> The passage from a lazy consensus to a discussion is not clear. How it
>>> is decided? Who is deciding it?
>>
>> Good catch.
>>
>> I have updated the wording to:
>>
>> "If lazy consensus fails (i.e. someone objects) you can start a
>> discussion or you can abandon the proposal."
>>
>> Does this address your concerns?
>>
>>> - In 4.2, there is "Proposals should be explained clearly and come with
>>> adequate justification. Disagreements should be constructive and
>>> ideally come with alternative proposals. The goal is to reach a positive
>>> outcome for the project, not convince others of your opinion." .
>>>
>>> Sorry but I don't understand that part. How can you expect that people
>>> deeply attached to a project can't have an opinion on how it should
>>> works or be seen by the others? Also what is the point of a discussion
>>> if it's not to convince others that your idea is OK?
>>
>> Interesting comment.
>>
>> If you enter into a discussion with the objective of trying to
>> convince the other person, and they do the same, all that will happen
>> is that you argue with each other until one person runs out of energy.
>>
>> I am more interested in the sort of discussion where both people put
>> aside preconceived notions, swap facts, debate points, and
>> cooperatively work towards a greater shared understanding of what is
>> being discussed.
>>
>> The goal then is not "winning" (i.e. convincing the other) but
>> expanding knowledge. Even if that means that you have been convinced
>> by the other person.
>>
>> Two people spend an hour arguing, and person A convinces person B of
>> their opinion. Typically, we would say that person A has won.
>>
>> Try modelling that discussion so that knowledge and time spent are
>> considered valuable, instead of pride. Both A and B spend time, but
>> only B receives new knowledge. So who is the real winner?
>>
>> This is important for the project because the first type of discussion
>> is not very valuable for us. The second is. That's why I put that the
>> end goal should be to reach a positive outcome for the project.
>>
>>> Rather what is a bad opinion for the project (i.e. an expression of an
>>> idea) there? How do you put the limit?
>>
>> It's not opinions that are bad. Instead: modes of discussion.
>>
>>> - In 3.3 you added the notion of having "good people skills" for
>>> commiters. How do you define "having good people skills"? This notion
>>> completely depends on the culture of the people interacting in the
>>> project. I propose to remove that sentence. It suffices to say that
>>> all contributors of the projects obey to the Code Of Conduct and make
>>> the Code Of Conduct enough generic.
>>
>> How do you define good technical skills? This stuff is always
>> dependant on individual interpretation. My goal here is to make it
>> explicit that as a project we value people skills over technical
>> skills.
>>
>> I would rather have someone who is helpful and cooperative on our
>> lists and who is only an average programmer, than someone who is
>> unhelpful and uncooperative who is an excellent programmer.
>>
>> This is not usually the case for OSS projects. But I believe it is
>> important. Which is why I want to bake it inout our bylaws.
>>
>>> - What about having the PMC members renewed each years by a vote of the
>>> community? So they will be the choice of the community? PMC members
>>> could be proposed during a period by the community and then a vote will
>>> happen.
>>
>> What benefits would this bring?
>>
>>> - The same for a chair. We could make it renewable more often. For
>>> example each 3 or 5 years.
>>
>> I've included this in the draft already. I am proposing that the chair
>> is reelected every year.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> --
>> Noah Slater
>> https://twitter.com/nslater
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater