Mailing-List: contact dev-help@couchdb.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: dev@couchdb.apache.org
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of bchesneau@gmail.com
 designates 209.85.219.47 as permitted sender)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <etPan.53d4c121.6b8b4567.be5@akai.skunkwerks.at>
References: 
 <CAJNb-9p7ndn+Fq8ZOMQw1WE8qgpXWemLmwe9ER55Zk_7TeZnXw@mail.gmail.com>
 <12343473.1104.1405776629081.JavaMail.Joan@RITA>
 <CAJNb-9qw3G2wWMwkL3LAs36MPA1L0CVY3rUZraitbyAkVDU_oQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <12CBACE4-0A73-4EA7-9E87-E1B8138DADCD@apache.org>
 <CAJNb-9rgRJyoanjW_GEeT_z+qj2rL1obvhktx41bpfHeAsKTXg@mail.gmail.com>
 <E20103CB-FD00-49EE-857A-22FAF25AD97B@apache.org>
 <CAPaJBx6JK9L63X8grv=QK9Vk6bHqs0=3f5a38o=5mnQ207BdXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJNb-9r0UPjPveMEVY65y6F6oPJBVVu5deoX-qAEDz+U8=BP+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3B932578-3545-4B1B-8557-D13747641533@apache.org>
 <CAJNb-9oD4ptFAhPuuX4FOq7UU+bS7uuoh+=zV=WAqnf3LzVDuA@mail.gmail.com>
 <etPan.53d4c121.6b8b4567.be5@akai.skunkwerks.at>
From: Benoit Chesneau <bchesneau@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 27 Jul 2014 11:25:14 +0200
Message-ID: 
 <CAJNb-9qwq3Ay3s-b9VbUL+s2nm9bum6fHwun=vOO0vHQaGWuAg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PROPOSAL] Code of conduct - edit of the point 2
To: "dev@couchdb.apache.org" <dev@couchdb.apache.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b33d1647d4a1004ff2963b4

--047d7b33d1647d4a1004ff2963b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

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.
>
> Empathy could also be defined as the action of attempting to understand t=
he
> perspective of the other person. Presumably this then results in a more
> effective
> discussion. I=E2=80=99m not sure what behaviourist is, but I will read up=
 on it
> later.
>
> I=E2=80=99m reasonably comfortable assuming that empathy, however you cho=
ose to
> define it,
> is not an English language construct. In the few languages I=E2=80=99m fa=
miliar
> 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: lookin=
g
> 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 wo=
rk
> > > 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 eve=
n
> 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 wha=
t
> > 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=E2=80=99ve reached the limit on discussing further in this thr=
ead. 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=E2=80=99ve 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

--047d7b33d1647d4a1004ff2963b4--