On Monday, May 16, 2016 3:56:01 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote: > On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:04:17 -0400 > Rich Freeman <ri...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > I hope I won't regret this > > > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: > > > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: > > [...] > > [...] > > [...] > > > > > Applying that same rationale, it would be unfair to say that an > > > undescribed level of professionalism in communication is required > > > as well. Nothing here violates the CoC. > > No but it violates elements simply lot listed in the CoC. DO we need a > better CoC? >
Apparently we do, because people will continue to find ways to complain about words and feelings. > This undescribed level of professionalism is presumed assumed > knowledge, or 'understood', however the evidence suggests it is FAR > from 'understood'. > No, everyone just has a different tolerance for words that hurt or don't hurt. Perceived intentions or the tone of a person behind a computer really doesn't matter to most. > Here is a point worth highlighting. While I find the language used to > deliver the message an affront to my social senses, b-man does not and > deems it apt to the situation. Herein therefore lies the dilemma. > Being a communication instance, there are no clear rights or wrongs, > but pure shades of grey. There are forms that most find fine and other Next on bookshelves we will have "50 shades of Gentoo"... who is ready?! > most find a violation of social etiquette. The result is that this > style of submissions and responses re issues over QA are tacitly > accepted as valid and therefore endorsed. There is at least one other > dev in high authority who has all but ticked the message as justified > in the circumstances, while in other instances has placed a cross to > the same dev's reply in a separate thread. > > This is predominantly why I refrain from sticking my neck out over > this type of issue. Inevitably, by weight of numbers in the community, > there will be someone who will vehemently reject and counter the point > posed and attempt to shout it down as tripe. The point will be lost, or > at least diluted to a meaningless mush. > I appluad your efforts to ensure that the social aspect of Gentoo is a pleasant one. The bottom line is that nothing wrong was said in this instance. > > If you're only able to behave in a professional manner if the > > standards of professionalism are explicitly spelled out, I think > > you're missing the point. > > Again, people come from various backgrounds and ideals so maybe it should be spelled out? That is completely unfeasible though hence the new book... > > Ultimately it is an attitude. When you point out a mistake make it > > either about: > > 1. Helping the person who made the mistake to improve because you > > want to see them make better contributions (which they aren't going to > > do if you drive them off). > > 2. If you feel that somebody simply isn't going to cut it, then by > > all means report them so that their commit access can be revoked. > I would prefer a simple "seriously...." email vice a report to QA and the revocation of my commit access. > rich0 here has hit the target a bullseye. The underlying attitude in > the initial post displays a belief of justification and entitlement to > 'shout down' the colleague and treat him with disdain over the blunder. > This is NOT a bootcamp with paid drill sargeants. > > As long as this persists and is not intervened to polish and tidy up, > g-devs will persist in making innocent, naive or incompetent blunders blunder: "a stupid or careless mistake." Are you redefining the word here or just calling the original violation stupid? Because that would seriously hurt some feelings. Semantics... what a condundrum. > and run the gauntlet of being publicly scolded over errata. I can only > express my view that this style of personal demeaning potentially > results in embarrassment, public humiliation and drives community > members away from participation. The ultimate negative influence. I > would never entertain taking on eclass writing with the incumbent qa > member delivering assessments under the title of 'code review' in the > style he does. > Thankfully someone is doing it. If you choose not to contribute, out of fear of an individual behind a computer, you should reevaluate why you are doing this. > It is clear he has learned that he is not only entitled but expected to > shout at folk for misdemeanours. hasufell also believed this, and > scoffed when I suggested to him directly one never needs to shout, but > rather speak in tempered moderate terms. > > Try it some time mgorny. The sky will not cave in. > Entitlement and privilege. The true essence of this whole problem. No one here wants to feel as though someone else is better or superior to them. I can only imagine though, that people believe individuals are sitting behind their computers just waiting for a bad piece of code to be committed so they can shout at someone. If either of those cases apply to anyone here you should find a new hobby. > > Either of these has the potential to make Gentoo better. Simply > > posting flames isn't likely to change the behavior of people who need > > #2, and it is likely to discourage people who need #1. Either is > > against all of our interests in making the distro we benefit from > > better. > > ditto I agree as well. However, the bottom line here is that nothing wrong was said, and a valid point was made to ensure the committer understood the severity of the mistake. Move on. -- Cheers, Aaron Bauman Gentoo Linux Developer GnuPG FP: 1536 F4B3 72EB 9C54 11F5 5C43 246D 23A2 10FB 0F3E
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
