couchdb-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Benoit Chesneau <bchesn...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
Date Mon, 28 Jul 2014 18:53:09 GMT
On Mon, Jul 28, 2014 at 4:08 PM, Noah Slater <nslater@apache.org> wrote:

> Folks,
>
> We have what our bylaws term an "interminable discussion" on our hands.
>
> To quote the bylaws: "Please try to be respectful of people's time and
> attention. It is a non-renewable resource and the only thing we always
> need more of."
>
> Benoit, you are the lone voice of dissent here. Please acknowledge
> group consensus. This thread has already wasted far too many project
> resources, and we are all to blame for participating in that.
>
> Please let's not discuss this any further.
>


Not to fast.

You probably missed the part where I made changes on the initial proposal 1
day ago trying to find a consensus (reframing), which is the third change.
I didn't have any answer.

Quoting the "bylaws" you're refferrng:

    If a proposal is particularly controversial, try making it reversible.
Reframe the proposal as an experiment (either at the project level or the
feature level) and identify a timeline for evaluation along with
unambiguous success and failure criteria. These sorts of proposal are
usually much easier to agree on.

   If a clear consensus emerges, you can proceed without a vote. Otherwise,
you should abandon the proposal or move to a vote.


Note that i am the one to decide if I abandon it. It's clear that if no one
agreed in a limited time, I will just consider it as abandoned. My last
proposal based on this discussion is indeed the last I will have.


- benoit.


- benoit.







>
> On 27 July 2014 21:04, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> wrote:
> >
> >> ----- Original Message -----
> >> From: "Benoit Chesneau" <bchesneau@gmail.com>
> >> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <dch@jsonified.com>
> >> 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.
> >>
> >> It is not behaviourist. Go read up on mirror neurons. There is
> >> plenty of physiological evidence supporting. Empathy is innate to the
> >> human physiology. Further, validation through discussion is the core of
> >> this point: trying to understand their emotional states and using
> >> that to intelligently inform your discourse on the mailing list is
> >> crucial to supportive discussion.
> >>
> >> The project is asking the same of you (and all other participants),
> >> and making it clear in this clause that tone-deaf responses that
> >> intentionally ignore others' emotional state are not appropriate.
> >>
> >> > In the few language I know (i admit to only know 4)
> >>
> >> Using my empathy I read this as passive-aggressive disagreement. I
> >> am going to ask you to please assume good faith on the part of those
> >> you are discussing this with. It is clear you are both frustrated and
> >> angry in this discussion to me (again, empathy) and I am doing my
> >> best to respond in a matter that will not further antagonize you.
> >>
> >> > And it is definitely a psychological term.
> >>
> >> Our project is littered with jargon that is terribly intimidating to
> >> those not of a computer science or engineering background. We are just
> >> about to pass bylaws that encourage those without that background to
> >> contribute in the ways that they can: on design, translation,
> >> documentation, project management and many other topics. To these
> people,
> >> and to many engineers & computer scientists, this term is a lot more
> >> familiar than Brewer's Therorem or Shannon's Theorem - or even Occam's
> >> Razor.
> >>
> >> > 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?
> >>
> >> The description has been laid out in that same paragraph quite clearly.
> >>
> >>    "Be empathetic, 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."
> >>
> >> But this description alone is insufficient without making it clear that
> >> awareness and recognition of the emotional state of others is a critical
> >> capacity that we require within this community.
> >>
> >> > Also you and other keeps forgetting to answer how a conflict based on
> >> "lack
> >> > of empathy" will solved.  Who will be the more empathetic?
> >>
> >> We are talking about empathy for the other people engaged in
> collaboration,
> >> not third parties here. This is not about, for example, showing deep
> >> empathy
> >> for the homeless or poverty-stricken. This is about me, Joan, showing
> >> empathy
> >> for you, Benoit, and understanding that your emotional state is
> potentially
> >> affecting how you are participating in this discussion. Claiming that
> you
> >> "only know 4 languages" to me triggered a mental recognition of your
> >> response
> >> as possibly passive-aggressive, to which I'm attempting to respond as
> >> delicately
> >> as possible.
> >>
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> Narrowly looking at this single sentence, I hope you have misunderstood
> the
> >> intent of this clause to mean "empathy for underprivileged third
> parties."
> >> The point is empathy for other contributors and their emotional state.
> I am
> >> showing restraint, not resorting to personal attacks, and doing my best
> to
> >> make you feel comfortable within this discussion and to not feel
> threatened
> >> by my words or actions.
> >>
> >> I'll provide another example. Last week, Noah reverted a number of my
> edits
> >> to the proposed bylaws. These were primarily syntax and grammar edits,
> but
> >> just the same it angered me greatly. Noah and I had a short discussion
> on
> >> IRC during which I tried to explain to him how angry I was. Noah had a
> lack
> >> of empathy in that he thought I was joking. When I explained I was
> really
> >> angry he and I both agreed to take a pause for an hour or so. By the
> time I
> >> came back, we came to a satisfactory resolution. Further, Noah
> personally
> >> apologized for upsetting me, which helped me feel better about
> contributing
> >> to the project in the future.
> >>
> >> This is really all we're asking of people with this clause. It is
> neither
> >> codification of a social justice agenda, nor tantamount to enforcing you
> >> to make every CouchDB commit an act of selfless love for the
> >> underprivileged
> >> of this world. We must be a friendly, supportive community where one's
> >> emotional state is not something of which to be ashamed, neglected, or
> >> willingly trodden upon by other members - especially those who hold
> status
> >> through being recognized committers or PMC members. In other words, no
> role
> >> gives you the permission to walk on others' feelings. They must be taken
> >> into consideration with every action.
> >>
> >> -Joan
> >>
> >
> > This where your empathy fails. I was just factual, answering to this
> > language knowledge argument that was advanced. Some simple links:
> >
> > http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/empathy
> >
> > or
> >
> > http://www.larousse.fr/encyclopedie/divers/empathie/47249
> >
> > Of course you will have to trust me about that....  Also I will just
> kindly
> > remember you that i am not an engineer neither one of this techies you
> seem
> > to assume I am. I have a plain background that shows it. It also shows
> you
> > don't really know me, which is quite normal ;)
> >
> > I won't answer in detail for the rest. I agree with some points and
> > disagree completely with some other. But that not the point of this
> thread.
> >
> > Let's be more clear, I propose to remove the word empathy and find a
> > sentence/paragraph that express what others expect from the others. I
> would
> > vote a text like this. I will be extremely uncomfortable with any text
> that
> > contains the word empathy.
> >
> > - benoit.
>
>
>
> --
> Noah Slater
> https://twitter.com/nslater
>

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