On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 5:44 PM, Joan Touzet <[email protected]> wrote:
> ----- 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 > 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.
