couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Jan Lehnardt <>
Subject Re: [REQUES] Review proposed bylaws (Was: Re: [DISCUSS] Project bylaws)
Date Thu, 05 Jun 2014 10:46:18 GMT
What Joan said.

On 05 Jun 2014, at 12:23 , Joan Touzet <> 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:
> 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 | | wohali everywhere else

View raw message