On Wed, Jan 13, 2016 at 3:15 PM, Regina Obe <l...@pcorp.us> wrote: > Another anecdotal thing. Personal attacks sometimes soften the blow. Take > that as you will. > > > > For example if Tom makes some snide remark like "Do all Bostonians program > this way?" > > > > It would lessen the blow of the criticism of the code as I would think > he's making fun of Bostonians coding style more than he is about my > abilities, and I as a Bostonian just don't know any better. > > He can also make fun of my tabbing style and say "What's wrong with your > editor? Perhaps you need to use a different one or change the settings" > > > > Although maybe those don't constitute personal attacks. I don't know. >
That's why I am not such a fan of rules and a larger fan of mediation, discussion etc as an effort to work out issues. > > > > > Thanks, > > Regina > > > > *From:* Regina Obe [mailto:l...@pcorp.us] > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 13, 2016 9:08 AM > *To:* 'Chris Travers' <chris.trav...@gmail.com> > *Cc:* 'Geoff Winkless' <pgsqlad...@geoff.dj>; 'Psql_General (E-mail)' < > pgsql-general@postgresql.org> > *Subject:* RE: [GENERAL] WIP: CoC V5 > > > > > On 13 January 2016 at 03:10, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > >> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid > >> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, > >> and Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. > >> "Of any kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the > >> "personal attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be > better? > > > One thing to think about here is the idea of framing the process. One > reason it might be a good idea to have a "respect the commons" clause is > that it becomes a good way to think about the interaction of review and > technical discussion. I.e. both sides want to improve > > > the software. The focus is on the software, not on the other person. > > > People *can* take offense when you say their code is not good enough, > particularly when it is true, because for better or worse we do often > identify with what we produce. But I would hope that if the focus is on > improvement of the software the this becomes at least a > > > bit less of a problem.. > > > > -- > > > Best Wishes, > > > Chris Travers > > > > Very good point. I know personally I feel more hurt at my code being > criticized than someone criticizing some random aspect of me. That said > > > > Perhaps something like > > > > "we judge contributions primarily based on how easily it fits into our > existing code base and the popularity of the problem or feature it targets" > > > > I was going to talk about correctness and all that, but I think that's > kind of inferred by the comment about fitting into our existing code base. > If it's not correct it wouldn't fit anyway. > > > > Thanks, > > Regina > -- Best Wishes, Chris Travers Efficito: Hosted Accounting and ERP. Robust and Flexible. No vendor lock-in. http://www.efficito.com/learn_more
