On Wed, Nov 16, 2016 at 8:46 AM, Noah Slater <nsla...@apache.org> wrote: > You misunderstand. This isn't about replacing one type of assumption about > your intentions with another type. Instead, it's about holding people > accountable for their actions (and the effects of those actions) > irrespective of their intentions.
Please explain or elaborate what you mean by "accountable". If "accountable" means "Hey, you should not have..." with a "Oh, sorry about that, my mistake" reply, then I have no problem. If it means "Hey, X said Y, ban..." (which is what I read in the word 'enforcement'), then I do have a big problem with that. > As has been mentioned on this thread already, not many people explicitly > set out to send a harmful email. And yet many harmful emails are probably > sent to our lists daily. And likewise, many people are reminded daily that emails are difficult medium to communicate in and that words often can be read in more than one way. > You sent me a private email saying, effectively: "Suppose you are right > about what you claim to have experienced, I have yet to see the evidence. > Please dig up that evidence and show it to me to convince me you're not > just a cry-baby." Do you want me to post it full here? Because, I didn't say "you", I said "people"... and you may have chosen to include yourself in that. "People commit murders" --> "He just called me a murderer!", do you see the parallel? Again, I think this shows the problem of expressing oneself in email, since it is impossible to anticipate every possible interpretation, both among native speakers and those that are less fluent. > It certainly doesn't engender any confidence that you would take me > seriously and not challenge me point by point, if I were to go to that > herculean effort of documenting all the things that contributed to my > emotional burnt out over the years. I didn't ask for "all the things". I asked "what [changes] in ASF could have led to an outcome that satisfied you." Instead, you hand waved a "This is a thoroughly horrible email for you to have sent me. " without further explanation, and now you say that it was because you think I called you a "cry-baby" when I didn't; <quote>convince me that this is not about a cry-baby and victimhood culture that people are trying to breed at ASF</quote> I also assumed (perhaps incorrectly) that you are a native speaker, and that you wouldn't have problem parsing my language. If I thought otherwise, I would indeed have constructed simpler sentences. > When we harm someone (for our purposes, let's assume unintentionally) the > person we harmed is usually not in the best place to do the emotional > labour necessary to explain why they are upset, or what was done wrong. > > This is where we find utility in shared community standards, clearly > documented in things like a code of conduct. I agree, and we have a Code of Conduct. I have no issue with people who speak out against ad hominems and name calling, and I agree that such behavior is unacceptable. What I do have a problem with is words like "feel safe". It is subjective and the ASF can not institute any mechanisms to make that a reality, other than banning criticism, debate and frankly anything that is not a lambda expression (free of side-effects). Being criticized on technical merit, conflicting opinions on possible ideas and similar non-personal topics, should not in my opinion be curbed. I think that is not the intention, but some people may think that is "feeling unsafe"... > These are not tools to bash people around head with. They are learning > resources. If there was a page somewhere that said "when someone is > reporting having had a bad experience, try to listen, believe, and support > them" (and so on) I could say "hey, I think what you did is in violation of > this principal". And then maybe other people with more energy than me, who > are less emotionally invested in what just happened, can talk to you about > it. Yes, this is very good argument and something I fully support. I would also appreciate language in Code of Conduct and "goals for diversity" page to that effect, i.e. "education", "promotion", "encouragement" and "peer support", rather than the very harsh "enforcement" (maybe I am too sensitive to that word, after living in China too long). I have just posted a proposal to change that "correct" what I take issue with. Cheers -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
