On 19/06/15 17:16, Felipe Magno de Almeida wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:55 AM, Carsten Haitzler <ras...@rasterman.com> > wrote: >> After some prodding we now have the following at the bottom of: > > Hello raster, > > [snip] > >> Any comments? > > I think the following in Boost policy is very useful to have and be > used in the guidelines(Do a mental s/Boost/Enlightenment/): > > <snipet> > * Guidelines for Effective Discussions > > Apply social engineering to prevent heated technical discussion from > degenerating into a shouting match, and to actively encourage the > cooperation upon which Boost depends. > > Questions help. If someone suggests something that you don't think > will work, then replying with a question like "will that compile?" or > "won't that fail to compile, or am I missing something?" is a lot > smoother than "That's really stupid - it won't compile." Saying "that > fails to compile for me, and seems to violate section n.n.n of the > standard" would be yet another way to be firm without being abrasive. > If most of the discussion has been code-free generalities, posting a > bit of sample code can focus people on the practical issues. > If most of the discussion has been in terms of specific code, try to > talk a bit about hidden assumptions and generalities that may be > preventing discussion closure. > Taking a time-out is often effective. Just say: "Let me think about > that for a day or two. Let's take a time-out to digest the discussion > so far." > </snipet> > > The "Questions help" really changes the mood of discussions and make > for a more amicable and affectionate relationship between members.
Hey, The efl community guidelines are intended to be short and simple. More of a general way of thinking than actual specific ways of operation, so I think the above guidelines are out of scope. Also, I don't really agree with their "question" method. I think posing comments as questions you obviously think you know the answer to, is more condescending (and fluffy) than just saying what you think. They make it look otherwise by using a very biased example. The equivalent of "that's really stupid - it won't compile" is "that's really stupid - will it compile?". Without the negativity: "Doesn't look like it'll compile" is in my point of view, better than "will it compile?". The key I guess, is humility. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
