Felipe Contreras wrote:
> I think there's an even more important number 0:
> Always assume good faith. When discussing through digital mediums,
> it's very easy to misconstrue the tone and intentions of other
> parties, so it's better to err on the side of caution, and if one is
> mistaken, assuming good faith doesn't cause harm, while the contrary
> does irreparable damage. This does not mean that one should continue
> to assume good faith when there's evidence to the contrary.

Agreed.  "Always assume good faith" is a good rule of thumb.

>> 0. You do not take offense, no matter what.  If someone attacks you
>> irrationally, you do not respond.  This is a public mailing list, and
>> we are all rational people: the attacker has already humiliated
>> herself in public, and everyone can see that.
> An even better and less absolutist version would be:

I went for the absolutist version because I felt that this point needs
to be driven in harder.  This is the biggest problem, in my opinion.

But yeah, your version is more technically correct.

>> 3. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies.  The ones that are most
>> common on this list: strawman, ad hominem, burden of proof, false
>> cause, the texas sharpshooter, and appeal to authority.
> It might be better to turn this negative rule into a positive one:
> "Discuss on the basis of logic and evidence". Then you can describe
> the common logical fallacies, and I would add "If you make a claim, be
> prepared it to defend it with evidence, or add an appropriate
> qualifier; probably, most likely, I think, etc."

Good addition.

>> If someone breaks one of these rules, there's a very simple way to
>> communicate this to them: you don't respond to their email.
>> Optionally, respond to their email off-list calmly explaining what
>> went wrong.
> I think you should reply, but not to her, to the mailing list, asking
> for others to don't reply. Then mute the thread. I already explained
> that about in the comment about flamewars.

I don't think "neglect" is the solution to anything.  We don't want
contributors to feel neglected; we want to make them understand that
their behavior was undesirable because of reasons X, Y, and Z.  In a
raging fire, they might not be able to see these reasons clearly.

> There's a corollary to that that works rather well in the LKML; you
> are permitted one flamewar per year. I'm not going to explain why this
> is a good thing, because unfortunately there's an irrational negative
> bias against me already, but there's a reason why this is a good rule.
> Even if you don't agree it's only one flamewar per year per person,
> it's not that much.

I suppose it's a way for people to vent built-up emotion.  Flamewars
will happen, no matter what we do; we cannot control the actions of
others.  If too many people want to start a fire, we can do nothing: I
don't propose an iron hand of suffocation.  My objective is more
realistic: it is to make people realize the undesirable effects and
"minimize" fires.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to