couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Date Sun, 27 Jul 2014 09:25:14 GMT
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <>

> > 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

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