community-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org>
Subject Re: Encouraging Diversity - Update 6
Date Wed, 16 Nov 2016 02:16:35 GMT
On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:
> You misunderstand. This isn't about replacing one type of assumption about
> your intentions with another type. Instead, it's about holding people
> accountable for their actions (and the effects of those actions)
> irrespective of their intentions.

Please explain or elaborate what you mean by "accountable". If
"accountable" means "Hey, you should not have..." with a "Oh, sorry about
that, my mistake" reply, then I have no problem. If it means "Hey, X said
Y, ban..." (which is what I read in the word 'enforcement'), then I do have
a big problem with that.

> As has been mentioned on this thread already, not many people explicitly
> set out to send a harmful email. And yet many harmful emails are probably
> sent to our lists daily.

And likewise, many people are reminded daily that emails are difficult
medium to communicate in and that words often can be read in more than one
way.

> You sent me a private email saying, effectively: "Suppose you are right
> about what you claim to have experienced, I have yet to see the evidence.
> Please dig up that evidence and show it to me to convince me you're not
> just a cry-baby."

Do you want me to post it full here? Because, I didn't say "you", I said
"people"... and you may have chosen to include yourself in that. "People
commit murders" --> "He just called me a murderer!", do you see the
parallel?  Again, I think this shows the problem of expressing oneself in
email, since it is impossible to anticipate every possible interpretation,
both among native speakers and those that are less fluent.

> It certainly doesn't engender any confidence that you would take me
> seriously and not challenge me point by point, if I were to go to that
> herculean effort of documenting all the things that contributed to my
> emotional burnt out over the years.

I didn't ask for "all the things". I asked "what [changes] in ASF could
have led to an outcome that satisfied you."
Instead, you hand waved a "This is a thoroughly horrible email for you to
have sent me. " without further explanation, and now you say that it was
because you think I called you a "cry-baby" when I didn't;  <quote>convince
me that this is not about a cry-baby and victimhood culture that people are
trying to breed at ASF</quote>
I also assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you are a native speaker, and
that you wouldn't have problem parsing my language. If I thought otherwise,
I would indeed have constructed simpler sentences.

> When we harm someone (for our purposes, let's assume unintentionally) the
> person we harmed is usually not in the best place to do the emotional
> labour necessary to explain why they are upset, or what was done wrong.
>
> This is where we find utility in shared community standards, clearly
> documented in things like a code of conduct.

I agree, and we have a Code of Conduct. I have no issue with people who
speak out against ad hominems and name calling, and I agree that such
behavior is unacceptable. What I do have a problem with is words like "feel
safe". It is subjective and the ASF can not institute any mechanisms to
make that a reality, other than banning criticism, debate and frankly
anything that is not a lambda expression (free of side-effects). Being
criticized on technical merit, conflicting opinions on possible ideas and
similar non-personal topics, should not in my opinion be curbed. I think
that is not the intention, but some people may think that is "feeling
unsafe"...

> These are not tools to bash people around head with. They are learning
> resources. If there was a page somewhere that said "when someone is
> reporting having had a bad experience, try to listen, believe, and support
> them" (and so on) I could say "hey, I think what you did is in violation
of
> this principal". And then maybe other people with more energy than me, who
> are less emotionally invested in what just happened, can talk to you about
> it.

Yes, this is very good argument and something I fully support. I would also
appreciate language in Code of Conduct and "goals for diversity" page to
that effect, i.e. "education", "promotion", "encouragement" and "peer
support", rather than the very harsh "enforcement" (maybe I am too
sensitive to that word, after living in China too long).
I have just posted a proposal to change that "correct" what I take issue
with.

Cheers
--
Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer
http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message