Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Adam wrote:
>
> So these guidelines gain the community nothing, and only serve to punish
> those who are already following them, without them being written down,
> because the root-cause of the problem is still here, and isn't going to go
> away, no ma
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thomas Adam wrote:
> It's a point on which one is never going to win, because no matter what one
> says, it'll just get twisted round in such a way that one then ends up
> questioning their own words, and their own conduct, and that's bad, because
> there never wa
Hello,
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 06:58:47PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
[...]
I often come across so-called "community guidelines" in other
projects---some of which adhere to them quite strictly, and others simply
doc
Michael Haggerty writes:
> On 06/12/2013 10:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Coaching new contributors, like mentoring GSoC students, is often
>> more time consuming than scratching the same itch yourself for any
>> reviewer, but it is an investment, which hopefully yields dividend
>> in the longe
On 06/12/2013 10:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> I would prefer a community standards document that looks more like this:
>> ...
>>
>> * Be welcoming to new community participants. Help them get oriented,
>> and be patient with their questions. Gently introduce them
From: "Jakub Narebski"
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:49 PM
Philip Oakley iee.org> writes:
From: "Michael Haggerty" alum.mit.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:52 PM
>> As my mother would say, "politeness costs nothing"
>
> Does your mother program C? We could use her around here
I th
Michael Haggerty writes:
> I would prefer a community standards document that looks more like this:
> ...
>
> * Be welcoming to new community participants. Help them get oriented,
> and be patient with their questions. Gently introduce them to our
> community standards, above all by setting a g
Philip Oakley iee.org> writes:
> From: "Michael Haggerty" alum.mit.edu>
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:52 PM
> >> As my mother would say, "politeness costs nothing"
> >
> > Does your mother program C? We could use her around here
>
> I think she programmed in Smalltalk and CleanYourRoom.
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 06:19:23PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> Fair? Fairness requires to judge each action without biases, nor
>> double standards. In the case of an open source community it requires
>> you to listen to the arguments b
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:10:11PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>>
>> Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
>> nobody else is to blame. He must be "removed" to prevent future
>> fires. This is the "per
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 04:56:27PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> John Keeping wrote:
> >> Either way, I'm not interested in problems that have no solutions.
> >> The only "solution" I see here is to suffocate every contributor until
> >> they are "tactful enough" for the majority's liking, a
Theodore Ts'o wrote:
> But if people who *are* senior developers in the git community decide,
> on their own, that someone isn't worth listening to, there's the
> punishment has been inflicted, and this happens without banning
> someone from posting or removing them from the mailing list.
Yes, I h
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 06:19:23PM -0500, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Fair? Fairness requires to judge each action without biases, nor
> double standards. In the case of an open source community it requires
> you to listen to the arguments before dismissing them, and consider
> the patches before dro
Jeff King wrote:
> And I think that is where the benevolent dictator role comes in. They
> weigh not just the points made in the discussion (or a summary of it),
> but also use their judgement on who is making comments (how many people,
> the utility of their past comments) and other factors (other
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 07:10:11PM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>
> Presumably, Felipe is the "fire hazard" that we are talking about, and
> nobody else is to blame. He must be "removed" to prevent future
> fires. This is the "perception of the regulars", correct?
>
> Then why haven't you
John Keeping wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:16:28AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> John Keeping wrote:
>> > Ugh, why this roundabout-passive-past tone? Use imperative tone
>> > like this:
>> >
>> > ...
>> >
>> > vs.
>> >
>> > We normally use the imperative in commit
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Philip Oakley wrote:
> From: "Michael Haggerty"
> Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:52 PM
> [...]
>
>>
>> That's a very good point (and a good illustration, too). How do you
>> like the new second and third sentences below?
>>
>> * When reviewing other peoples' code
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 08:16 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
>> other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
>> the argument, and not the tone.
>
> I stop
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Jeff King writes:
>
>> So there are no hard rules, and this is not a democracy[1]. For the most
>> part the community runs itself in an open and collective fashion, and
>> the dictator's job is easy; but ultimately, he or she is in charge o
Jeff King writes:
> So there are no hard rules, and this is not a democracy[1]. For the most
> part the community runs itself in an open and collective fashion, and
> the dictator's job is easy; but ultimately, he or she is in charge of
> what gets applied and what doesn't. Rules like "break ties
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:00:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> > * Accept reviewers' comments gratefully and take them very seriously.
> > Show that you appreciate the help by giving the reviewer the benefit of
> > the doubt. If, after careful consideration, you find that you cannot
> > agree
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> At the risk of being
> presumptuous myself, I suggest that you show a copy of your email to
> somebody whom you know and respect in the real world, somebody who is
> not immersed in the Git community meltdown. For example, somebody like
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 12:16:28AM +0530, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> John Keeping wrote:
> > Ugh, why this roundabout-passive-past tone? Use imperative tone
> > like this:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > vs.
> >
> > We normally use the imperative in commit messages, perhaps like
> >
From: "Michael Haggerty"
Sent: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 7:52 PM
[...]
That's a very good point (and a good illustration, too). How do you
like the new second and third sentences below?
* When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive.
Remember that submitting patches for public
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
>> I'm sorry, but the problem has no solution then.
>>
>> The "problem" we are dealing with is irrational and/or out-of-tone
>> emails. Unless you possess some mind-control mechanism that will get
>> all contr
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, John Keeping wrote:
> I realise that we shouldn't take offence to review comments, but we are
> all human and it is sometimes hard not to take things personally.
>
> In the examples above, the first makes it feel like the submitter is
> fighting to get a patch inc
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 08:52:05PM +0200, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> That's a very good point (and a good illustration, too). How do you
> like the new second and third sentences below?
>
> * When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive.
> Remember that submitting patches for pu
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> I stopped reading your email here. I've read enough tactless emails
>> over the last few days, but to be asked to read an email that was
>> *intentionally* written tactlessly is too detrimental to my quality of life.
>
> I'm sorry, but th
Michael Haggerty wrote:
> I stopped reading your email here. I've read enough tactless emails
> over the last few days, but to be asked to read an email that was
> *intentionally* written tactlessly is too detrimental to my quality of life.
I'm sorry, but the problem has no solution then.
The "p
On 06/11/2013 08:29 PM, John Keeping wrote:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:00:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
>> Michael Haggerty writes:
>>> * When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive. Set
>>> high expectations, but do what you can to help the submitter achieve
>>> them.
John Keeping wrote:
> Ugh, why this roundabout-passive-past tone? Use imperative tone
> like this:
>
> ...
>
> vs.
>
> We normally use the imperative in commit messages, perhaps like
> this?
>
> ...
>
> As my mother would say, "politeness costs nothing" ;-)
The rev
On 06/11/2013 08:16 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
> other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
> the argument, and not the tone.
I stopped reading your email here. I've read enough tactless emails
ove
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:00:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
> > * When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive. Set
> > high expectations, but do what you can to help the submitter achieve
> > them. Don't demand changes based only on your persona
On 06/11/2013 07:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
> [...]
>> * When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive. Set
>> high expectations, but do what you can to help the submitter achieve
>> them. Don't demand changes based only on your personal preferences
This is an exercise. I can easily be more tactful (as evidenced by
other threads), but I'm choosing not to be. I want you to focus on
the argument, and not the tone.
Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Ram, you are insulting Thomas the human being rather than addressing his
> points. Please stop.
He doe
Michael Haggerty writes:
> I would prefer a community standards document that looks more like this:
OK.
> * Accept reviewers' comments gratefully and take them very seriously.
> Show that you appreciate the help by giving the reviewer the benefit of
> the doubt. If, after careful consideration
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
> Michael Haggerty writes:
>
>> * Accept reviewers' comments gratefully and take them very seriously.
>> Show that you appreciate the help by giving the reviewer the benefit of
>> the doubt. If, after careful consideration, you find that you c
Michael Haggerty writes:
> * Accept reviewers' comments gratefully and take them very seriously.
> Show that you appreciate the help by giving the reviewer the benefit of
> the doubt. If, after careful consideration, you find that you cannot
> agree with a reviewer's suggestion, explain your rea
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
> Felipe Contreras writes:
>
>> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
>>
>>> My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
>>> regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
>>> f
Felipe Contreras writes:
> On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
>
>> My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
>> regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
>> fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just re
Hi,
Before going to your arguments, can you stop conveniently *ignoring*
my argument and answer this questions?
When two children fight, who has the blame? The one that threw the
first punch? Or the one that returned it?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 9:40 AM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 06/11/2013 0
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast wrote:
> My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
> regulars who have spoken in this whole mess -- is that since there is a
> fire hazard, it would be more effective firefighting to just remove the
> hazard, thus preventin
On 06/11/2013 03:40 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> Is it because you have realized deep down that you have absolutely no
> rational argument...Why are you incapable of
> using your words to counter my arguments rationally?Are you so blind
> that you cannot see the consequences of acting without
Thomas Rast wrote:
> It has become clear, also in discussion on IRC, that your preferred
> approach is to fight the fires, attempting to extinguish flames as they
> happen.
Incorrect. I am interested in minimizing occurrences, which is why I
started this thread: to calmly and rationally discuss h
Ramkumar Ramachandra writes:
> Michael Haggerty wrote:
>> Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think
>> such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor
>> of your proposal; frankly, it sounds to me more like
>>
>> Documentation/GuidelinesForComm
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
wrote:
> Whether or not you were justified in being offended is nobody's
> business.
In a parallel with law, there is no concept of "justly" offended,
precisely because there is no way to determine what that even means.
People get offended by
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, assum
Michael Haggerty wrote:
> Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think
> such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor
> of your proposal; frankly, it sounds to me more like
>
> Documentation/GuidelinesForCommunityToBendOverBackwardsToLiveWithFCsP
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> The intent behind the document might be a noble one, but I am afraid
> that the text is too broad and vague and does not address the real
> issue to be of practical use.
Drafting something like this is shit work, which explains why nobody
has attempted it yet. I have no in
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Michael Haggerty wrote:
> On 06/10/2013 03:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
>> I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
>
> Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think
> such a document would be helpful.
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
wrote:
> I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
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 in
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
> "Robin H. Johnson" writes:
>
>> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>>> Célestin Matte writes:
>>>
>>> > Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
>>> >> 0. You do not take offense, no matter what. If
On 06/10/2013 03:28 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
> I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
Thank you for drafting a proposed CommunityGuidelines document; I think
such a document would be helpful. But I don't like the overall flavor
of your proposal; frankly, it
On 06/10/2013 04:56 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
A Large Angry SCM wrote:
It is absolutely imperative to keep all our contributors productive,
and maximize output.
Why?
A useful "product" with a maintainable code base are what seems to be more
important to a successful open source effort.
A Large Angry SCM wrote:
>> It is absolutely imperative to keep all our contributors productive,
>> and maximize output.
>
>
> Why?
>
> A useful "product" with a maintainable code base are what seems to be more
> important to a successful open source effort.
Doesn't a successful open source effort
On 06/10/2013 03:45 PM, Ramkumar Ramachandra wrote:
[...]
It is absolutely imperative to keep all our contributors productive,
and maximize output.
Why?
A useful "product" with a maintainable code base are what seems to be
more important to a successful open source effort.
A Large Angry S
Jonathan Nieder wrote:
> I don't think most bystanders would misunderstand if I let a certain
> person alone instead of responding and saying "You are being
> unproductive. Please stop." But that certain person seems to
> misunderstand, whether I say that or not. So when I lose patience I
> say
Junio C Hamano wrote:
> 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.
[...
"Robin H. Johnson" writes:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Célestin Matte writes:
>>
>> > Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
>> >> 0. You do not take offense, no matter what. If someone attacks you
>> >> irrationally, you do not respond. Th
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
> Célestin Matte writes:
>
> > Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
> >> 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
> >
Célestin Matte writes:
> Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
>> 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
>> hersel
Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
> 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 s
I've tried to write down a bare minimum, without restating the obvious.
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 e
63 matches
Mail list logo
