> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way >> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell. > > That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is only > allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people are > afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How can we > avoid that?
I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing with each other. If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions about our culture. How can I improve that? > Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely. I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy excuses of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this out in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here. Best Jan -- > > ermouth > > 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org>: > >> Of course, this could have gone this way: >> >> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and why >> this is supposed to work?” >> “Here’s a bunch of links: …” >> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say ‘but’, >> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?” >> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we have >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem disagreeing >> with each other.” >> >> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working… >> >> Best >> Jan >> -- >> >> >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <ermo...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post >>> with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors >>> with this. >>> >>> As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to >>> unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then >>> posts, starting with ‘but‘. >>> >>> Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed – >> nobody >>> dare to say ‘but’. >>> >>> >>> ermouth >>> >>> 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org>: >>> >>>> >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> Hi Jan >>>>> >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: >>>>>> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we >>>>>> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback. >>>>> >>>>> Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles >>>>> and how they are different? >>>> >>>> Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous >>>> discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your >> example >>>> here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to >> re-play >>>> this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in >>>> particular, so I changed things a little): >>>> >>>> >>>> “But…”-style: >>>> >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.” >>>> >>>> “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.” >>>> >>>> “…” >>>> >>>> <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves >> the >>>> project> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> “Yes, and…”-style: >>>> >>>> “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.” >>>> >>>> “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have >> the >>>> somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list >> for >>>> website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?” >>>> >>>> “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a >>>> name as design@ is.” >>>> >>>> “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more >>>> inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing >> list >>>> system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we >>>> should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“ >>>> >>>> <fruitful conversation continues> >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more >> efficient, >>>> we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so >> cutting >>>> these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as >> a >>>> project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors >> is >>>> the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes >> sure >>>> that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making >>>> the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, >> it >>>> doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does >>>> matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right >> after, >>>> because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply >> burned >>>> out. >>>> >>>> * * * >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Jan >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> ,,,^..^,,, >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: >>>> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ >>>> >>>> >> >> -- >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ >> >> -- Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/
