Hi,
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 12:19 PM, Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org 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
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
On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 5:19 AM, Thomas Adam tho...@xteddy.org 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
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 messages, perhaps like
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 removed
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 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
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 have
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:56 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 7:27 AM, Theodore Ts'o ty...@mit.edu 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
Philip Oakley philipoakley at iee.org writes:
From: Michael Haggerty mhagger at 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
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
From: Jakub Narebski jna...@gmail.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 12, 2013 3:49 PM
Philip Oakley philipoakley at iee.org writes:
From: Michael Haggerty mhagger at 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
On 06/12/2013 10:02 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 11:41 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
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
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
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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 5:45 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com 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
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com 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
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 how
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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch 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,
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 mhag...@alum.mit.edu
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch 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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:41 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch wrote:
Felipe Contreras felipe.contre...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:33 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch wrote:
My approach -- and in my perception also that preferred by most of the
regulars who have spoken in
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 11:10 AM, Thomas Rast tr...@inf.ethz.ch wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
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
On 06/11/2013 07:00 PM, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 10:00:56AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:
Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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 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
over
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 review is being
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 mhag...@alum.mit.edu writes:
* When reviewing other peoples' code, be tactful and constructive. Set
high expectations, but do what you can to help the submitter achieve
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
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com 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
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 public
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:29 PM, John Keeping j...@keeping.me.uk 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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Ramkumar Ramachandra artag...@gmail.com 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
From: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
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
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
this?
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 7:40 AM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
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 with a
Jeff King p...@peff.net 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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Jeff King p...@peff.net 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,
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu 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
On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM, Philip Oakley philipoak...@iee.org wrote:
From: Michael Haggerty mhag...@alum.mit.edu
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
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 see
Célestin Matte celestin.ma...@ensimag.fr 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
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Célestin Matte celestin.ma...@ensimag.fr 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
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.
[...]
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 so,
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
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 (with a
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.
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 Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 12:42 PM, Junio C Hamano gits...@pobox.com wrote:
Robin H. Johnson robb...@gentoo.org writes:
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
Célestin Matte celestin.ma...@ensimag.fr writes:
Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
0. You
On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Ramkumar Ramachandra
artag...@gmail.com 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
59 matches
Mail list logo