> a more positive way of giving feedback
Ok, lets build a tree to compare sugar floods with reality )
1. Michelle proposed design@ ML, good intention – but no realistic plan.
1. Everybody agree, ML created, and dies right after birth for well seen
reasons.
2. Someone says ‘We already have www@, that is abandoned’ – and
discussion starts.
2. Majority insists idea is good as is – but still no plan or prognosis
on obstacles. Also majority begin to depress the only person, who dared to
express doubts vocally. Pressure is not direct – this community is highly
civilized – but collectively mixing in some aside principles and rules is
highly effective way to isolate and fade out any opinion.
1. Everybody (as well as person, who initially criticized) agrees with
majority, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen reasons.
2. Someone other enumerates very low level problems directly, saying
‘ML is irrelevant, because it lacks this, that and forth’.
3. Majority still insists idea is good and increase pressure using aside
principles and rules.
1. Everybody agrees, ML created and dies right after birth for well seen
reasons.
2. Someone begin to think, how to workaround possible obstacles and
shows alternatives.
You can by yourself choose, which steps and approach might produce death of
idea before it was born, and which steps made idea stronger.
I played school theater zillion years ago, and know, that ‘yes-and’ is good
for solving on-stage stalls. Nothing for that zillions years after proved
me, that restricted lexical patterns are good for improving real things )
Time to time negative feedback is a key for any open system‘s stability
regulation and sustainable grow. Sugar floods only good when you make jam.
It‘s tasty, surely, but it can‘t grow, because sugar is conservant.
BR
ermouth
2015-09-14 20:35 GMT+03:00 Robert Kowalski <[email protected]>:
> Oh wow, so much feedback!
>
> I think Jason and Jan (and also me with my initial post) are trying to
> advocate a more positive way of giving feedback.
>
> I would really recommend this talk which explains a lot of Human-Human
> interactions in communities: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSv7GIX-XQ0
>
> I would be really interested in your feedback about it as a possible
> building block for further discussions about Jan's and Jason's mails.
>
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 6:58 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 18:49, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > >
> > > Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at
> > right
> > > moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying
> ‘Yes’
> > > each time )
> > >
> > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion
> > >
> > > As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them
> does
> > > anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be
> > dropped.
> >
> > I already know the answer :) — Also, why didn’t you bring that up in that
> > thread?
> >
> > Best
> > Jan
> > --
> >
> > >
> > > ermouth
> > >
> > > 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <[email protected]>:
> > >
> > >> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"?
> > >>
> > >> I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of
> the
> > >> conversation, and also having fun!
> > >>
> > >> The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter,
> or
> > the
> > >> facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say
> > "Sure!"
> > >> and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected
> consequences
> > >> will be.
> > >>
> > >> For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of
> > "yes-and"
> > >> style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer
> fixes
> > its
> > >> bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered:
> > >> "Yes, let's throw it out."
> > >>
> > >> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>
> > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other
> > >>>> that we have the best of the project in mind
> > >>>
> > >>> If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts
> are
> > >>> stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@
> with
> > >>> current approach – he is right.
> > >>>
> > >>> I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle.
> > Surely,
> > >> he
> > >>> trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely
> > >> ortogonal
> > >>> to trust.
> > >>>
> > >>> Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a
> solution.
> > >>> Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t
> > imagine,
> > >>> how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing
> > >> barbarian
> > >>> in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’.
> > >>>
> > >>>> That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating
> > >> here
> > >>>
> > >>> Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to
> > >>> unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point
> out,
> > >> that
> > >>> if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by
> yourself
> > >>> first.
> > >>>
> > >>>> [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive
> > >>> feedback, when you
> > >>>> have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas.
> > >>>
> > >>> Absolutely. +1000.
> > >>>
> > >>> ermouth
> > >>>
> > >>> 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>:
> > >>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way
> > >>>>>> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness
> is
> > >>>> only
> > >>>>> allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people
> > >> are
> > >>>>> afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How
> > >> can
> > >>> we
> > >>>>> avoid that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we
> > >> have
> > >>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >> disagreeing
> > >>>> with each other.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave
> > the
> > >>>> project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions
> > >> about
> > >>>> our culture. How can I improve that?
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>> Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy
> > >>> excuses
> > >>>> of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called
> > this
> > >>> out
> > >>>> in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages
> > on
> > >>>> this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s
> the
> > >>> kind
> > >>>> of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Best
> > >>>> Jan
> > >>>> --
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> Of course, this could have gone this way:
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how
> and
> > >>> why
> > >>>>>> this is supposed to work?”
> > >>>>>> “Here’s a bunch of links: …”
> > >>>>>> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say
> > >>>> ‘but’,
> > >>>>>> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?”
> > >>>>>> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that
> we
> > >>>> have
> > >>>>>> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem
> > >>> disagreeing
> > >>>>>> with each other.”
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working…
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like
> > >> “Starting
> > >>>> post
> > >>>>>>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of
> > >>> contributors
> > >>>>>>> with this.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe,
> > >> but
> > >>>> to
> > >>>>>>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more
> uncomfortable,
> > >>>> then
> > >>>>>>> posts, starting with ‘but‘.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions
> undiscussed –
> > >>>>>> nobody
> > >>>>>>> dare to say ‘but’.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> ermouth
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>:
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]>
> > >>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Hi Jan
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]
> >
> > >>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like
> > >>> that
> > >>>> we
> > >>>>>>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback.
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback
> > >>> styles
> > >>>>>>>>> and how they are different?
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous
> > >>>>>>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on
> your
> > >>>>>> example
> > >>>>>>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean
> to
> > >>>>>> re-play
> > >>>>>>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out
> > >> anyone
> > >>> in
> > >>>>>>>> particular, so I changed things a little):
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “But…”-style:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “…”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion
> > >>> leaves
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> project>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Yes, and…”-style:
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still
> > >>> have
> > >>>>>> the
> > >>>>>>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing
> > >>> list
> > >>>>>> for
> > >>>>>>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as
> > >>> inviting a
> > >>>>>>>> name as design@ is.”
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be
> > >> even
> > >>>> more
> > >>>>>>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our
> > >>> mailing
> > >>>>>> list
> > >>>>>>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with,
> maybe
> > >>> we
> > >>>>>>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> <fruitful conversation continues>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more
> > >>>>>> efficient,
> > >>>>>>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place,
> so
> > >>>>>> cutting
> > >>>>>>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1
> > >> purpose
> > >>>> as
> > >>>>>> a
> > >>>>>>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more
> > >>> contributors
> > >>>>>> is
> > >>>>>>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It
> > >>> makes
> > >>>>>> sure
> > >>>>>>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse
> ideas
> > >>>> making
> > >>>>>>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall.
> > >>>> Long-term,
> > >>>>>> it
> > >>>>>>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but
> it
> > >>>> does
> > >>>>>>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project
> right
> > >>>>>> after,
> > >>>>>>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or
> > >> simply
> > >>>>>> burned
> > >>>>>>>> out.
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> * * *
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> Best
> > >>>>>>>> Jan
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>>> ,,,^..^,,,
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>> --
> > >>>>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> --
> > >>>>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> --
> > >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> > >>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>
> >
> > --
> > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB:
> > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
> >
> >
>
