----- Original Message ----- From: "Benoit Chesneau" <[email protected]> On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 11:06 AM, Dave Cottlehuber <[email protected]> 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
