Hello, Am 04.06.2011 22:05, schrieb Scott Kitterman: > Some people seem to think that the CoC requires us to avoid conflict, but I > think the opposite is true. I think it requires us to engage and work to get > conflicts resolved. I can understand that my response may have seemed harsh, > but it was nothing more than an honest reflection of my reaction.
I agree with you that avoiding conflict is not a goal of the CoC, it just reminds us of doing it in a civil, engaging and goal-oriented way. I can't remember who paraphrased the CoC in five words, but it was "be excellent with each other" which is very far away from "never disagree". :) > I agree there are similarities, but I find the situation more like after a > potential sponsor reviews a patch and suggests upstreaming would be the best > approach they are called idiots for suggesting it. I think that would be > inappropriate in that context just as the flaming response to Evan's > suggestions were inappropriate. "You're idiots" is not how I understood the mail, but I guess that's sufficiently clear by now. >> What exactly was unacceptable? Could you imagine that Zygmunt was >> demotivated as well? > > I think flaming people who are trying to help you is unacceptable. It > wouldn't > suprise me if it were, but if people are not willing to work collaboratively > as part of the community, I'm not overly concerned about it (Note: I'm not > saying that's still the case in this situation, but it certainly appeared > that > way at the time). Who exactly do you feel was flamed? Zygmunt's mail was not directed at any specific person. I personally would probably have written the specific mail differently, but as I said earlier, I see this as the experience of a frustrated contributor who is overwhelmed by the amount of work and information after just having shared a solution to a specific problem. This is a very real problem and I think it's worth acknowledging it. The main question to me was: how much is it the default expectation that contributors go all the way and how do we treat them (and their solution) if they can't/don't want to generalise it. >>>> Ubuntu is different because we invite people to share their ideas and we >>>> welcome people in. Dismissing a helpful developer is unproductive and >>>> more importantly actively damaging to the project. >>> >>> I'm not sure who the helpful developer you're referring to is? Blasting >>> someone who offers suggestions about how best to get one's work >>> incorporated into Ubuntu is not, IMO, helpful. >> >> I'm not sure Zygmunt's intent was to get dh_splitpackage into Ubuntu. At >> least it's not mentioned in the initial email. The way I read the mail >> is "Hey, I solved a problem I ran into, check it out if you're interested." > > In that case a simple "That's great, but I'm not interested in trying to get > it into Ubuntu" would have been sufficient. I'm a bit surprised - to me this never seemed to be part of the email exchange. >>> I see in another part of this thread that >>> Zygmunt is going to work with the Debhelper upstream to see if this can >>> be incorporated. I think that's very good news. >> >> I agree that it's good news, the question is if this was the most >> pain-free way to "get there". >> > I agree it's quite unfortunate that Evan's initial helpful suggestions > weren't > better received. If they had been, a lot of pain would have been avoided. > >>> I think that sitting idly by while people are hostile and >>> negative makes the environment more difficult for everyone. >> >> I totally agree with this and I did feel the need to step in. > > It's unfortunate (IMO) that you decided to step in and defend such behavior. I did not defend it, I decided to step in when I felt the discussion was becoming personal. >>> Instead of a long >>> rant attacking Ubuntu and Debian, Zygmunt could have just said he wasn't >>> interested in doing that work, but he didn't. He went on the attack and >>> I think it's unreasonable for you to attack me for calling him on it. >> >> There certainly was frustration in that mail, but it also contained >> valuable feedback about how it feels contributing something to >> Ubuntu/Debian for somebody who is not participating in Ubuntu >> development every single day. >> >> I think it's absolutely possible to point out that the tone of an email >> is not OK, the critical difference between our two perceptions is in >> "rant of a frustrated contributor" vs. "attack of our projects". > > Perhaps rant of a frustrated non-contributor. Most of the "Oh, I'd have to > ..." in the response was completely inaccurate. If the response had been > further questions about what would be required to work on integrating it with > debhelper, then it would have been completely appropriate (even with some > mention of being worried about the level of effort required). I can't ask this of anybody else, but what I would try to do in such a situation is to ask questions instead. I mentioned a few examples in my mail earlier on. At every single time, anyone of us can deescalate a discussion. >>>> Negative: >>>> - some confusion about email addresses, >>>> - a lasting impression that contributing to Debian and Ubuntu is hard >>>> and you might get flamed if you share your work but might be too >>>> busy to fully generalise it, etc etc. >>> - Ubuntu developers getting flamed for upholding project values >> >> It seems we both clashed in trying to do the same. >> >>> - At least one Ubuntu developer feeling like the Canonical community >>> team >>> >>> is more committed to Canonical employees than Ubuntu. >> >> Jono, Jorge, David and Ahmed were not part of this debate. >> >> It's an idle side-path of the discussion, but I don't want anybody >> treated on this mailing list like Zygmunt was treated, Canonical >> employee or not. > > I don't sense any concern until it was a Canonical person being told they > were > behaving inappropriately. AIUI you are the person on the community team > tasked with working with Ubuntu developers, so what I have to go on is your > reaction to this. I think the reply that Evan got was completely > inappropriate and unfair. He was just trying to be helpful. When I see some > concern over this, then I'll be glad to reconsider. I agree that Evan was trying to be helpful and I noted his contributions to the discussion as positive. The two points that worried me were the general question about our default expectations and the tone that became personal. Have a great day, Daniel -- Get involved with Ubuntu Development: http://identi.ca/ubuntudev http://twitter.com/ubuntudev http://facebook.com/ubuntudev -- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
