Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
From: Robert Samuel Newson <rnewson@apache.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAJNb-9qw3G2wWMwkL3LAs36MPA1L0CVY3rUZraitbyAkVDU_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 19 Jul 2014 16:13:20 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <12CBACE4-0A73-4EA7-9E87-E1B8138DADCD@apache.org>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9p7ndn+Fq8ZOMQw1WE8qgpXWemLmwe9ER55Zk_7TeZnXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <12343473.1104.1405776629081.JavaMail.Joan@RITA>
 <CAJNb-9qw3G2wWMwkL3LAs36MPA1L0CVY3rUZraitbyAkVDU_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dev@couchdb.apache.org


"Empathy: the ability to understand and share the feelings of another."

Expecting people to have empathy is not vague. Expecting people to be =
honest is also not vague. I=92m sure we all *have* empathy and that it=92s=
 a perfectly reasonable requirement of our community members.

I think your issue is not that empathy is vaguely defined but that it is =
difficult to practice well when participants are remote. And I =
completely agree with you. It is hard to read other people=92s emotion =
states. I=92ve certainly erred in that judgement myself (and not just =
once!). That is not the same as saying we shouldn=92t try, or that, if =
we fail, that no mistake was really made because the term is so vague.

It might be that the term "empathy" is sufficiently ambiguous to warrant =
a replacement but I=92m mindful that few words are rigidly defined, most =
carry two or more senses. Attempts to coin new terms with precisely one =
meaning have also failed ("refactor", to name one, has lost its sole =
reason for existing through constant misuse).

I=92m not as confident as you that "honest" is not vague. You might =
think that because your peer group broadly agree on its meaning, but =
that=92s obviously not the same thing at all.

Summary: Acknowledging that one cannot always accurately know the =
emotional state of another is not an argument against empathy, it is an =
argument for empathy.

To save this going on forever, are you vetoing the use of the word =
"empathy"? If so, can you suggest alternate wording that captures the =
intent? That does not include removing it and replacing it with =
different virtues like honesty.

B.


On 19 Jul 2014, at 15:47, Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 19, 2014 at 3:30 PM, Joan Touzet <wohali@apache.org> =
wrote:
>> Again, I am -1 on this. Having awareness of the emotional state of =
others
>> has proven time and again to be of critical importance, especially in =
this
>> community where tempers have flared.
>=20
> You don't have any possibility to know what is the emotional state of
> the other. Except if you live in his head. These are just guess and
> prone to error. Especially via mail.
>=20
>>=20
>> If you don't like the word empathy, we need to add back in this =
concept
>> at the very top level, within the first few words - NOT past the =
colon.
>=20
> I don't like relying on something vague and prone to conflict. Which
> one will be the more empathic in your view. The one that follow the
> opinion or the one that doesn't think you are empathetic with him? Who
> will  be the more empathetic?
>=20
> Honesty however is not a vague concept. Neither is trust ie the
> belief that someone or something is reliable, good, honest, effective,
> etc.
>=20
> where empathy is:  the feeling that you understand and share another
> person's experiences and emotions : the ability to share someone
> else's feelings.
>=20
> The feeling...