couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Robert Samuel Newson <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2014 10:22:17 GMT

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.


On 27 Jul 2014, at 10:25, Benoit Chesneau <> wrote:

> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <>
> 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

View raw message