On 20/06/15 09:20, tokiclover wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 05:38:52PM +0100, Tom Hacohen wrote: >> Hey, >> >> The efl community guidelines are intended to be short and simple. More >> of a general way of thinking than actual specific ways of operation, so >> I think the above guidelines are out of scope. >> > > I second this whole heartedly! Everything, if possible, including the code > of conduct should be simple and sane. It's even trueer with a little a > community, and, still feasable with a big one.--It's just a matter of choice > to keep it simple and sane (KISS) while avoiding time waste on unecessary > long guidelines that bore anybody to sleep when trying to read them. > >> Also, I don't really agree with their "question" method. I think posing >> comments as questions you obviously think you know the answer to, is >> more condescending (and fluffy) than just saying what you think. They >> make it look otherwise by using a very biased example. The equivalent of >> "that's really stupid - it won't compile" is "that's really stupid - >> will it compile?". Without the negativity: "Doesn't look like it'll >> compile" is in my point of view, better than "will it compile?". The key >> I guess, is humility. >> >> -- >> Tom. >> > > I second this one as well, and this question of humility and being able to > express oneself without unecessary verbiage and hypocrisy is *really* > important. So, it's worth adding two points in the CoB to adress them. > > Anybody should be able to express oneselef freely. I mean anybody should be > able to call crap code crap and stupid code stupid. I do understand that some > people have ego issues and cannot stand being criticized, and, would take > *any* critics *too* personally. As a human being, one should be open to > criticism because this is the way to improvements as a worthy and likeable > human being. One may not like criticism but it should not make anybody > to enter into an endless and defensive (flame) war. > > Still, this has nothing to do with the discussion at hand, personnal criticism > should be kept in personal exchange channels instead of being public to avoid > dividing a whole community, because, in this case, everyone is assumed and > pushed to take a position for or against one side or the other. > > We are talking about code criticism in order to be able to keep high standard > with what is being pushed in our project here. Obviously, if fellow developers > or users qualify a contribution as crap or stupid it's because they care about > the project. If it's not obvious for you... > > First, do not obviously take "that's really stupid" or "that's really crap" > as being directly aimed at your face--it's obviously about your code. And of > course, you should be accountable for your contributions. > > Second, instead of show casing your ego by taking it as a personal attack, > you'd better ask why if it's not obvious. Nobody ever came in this Earth > by knwoing everthing! So, better ask why and learn a thing or two, instead > of getting upset for nothing. I guess this is called humility. Of course, > in this case, the commentator or critic should re-ajust the critics > accordingly as needed.
I completely agree. I often find myself siding with the blunt commenter (I'm also one at times). I write stupid hacky code ALL THE TIME, I need people to call me out on it and make it better, so I can learn and that our codebase can be better. I show everyone similar curtsey. I'm also publicly critical of myself because I would like to be held accountable for my mistakes even when others don't necessarily notice it. Luckily the English language is rich enough to allow us to show various levels of discontent. I don't always call code stupid or hacky, only when I think it is (everything I say is what I think and not absolute truth). When I don't think it'll compile, I'll often write "I don't think it'll compile", or if I test it, I just say "it doesn't compile" or paste the log. If it can be better, I suggest what I think is right. I don't always prefix my suggestion with a disclaimer detailing it's what I think, and it's possibly wrong, that's implied. I don't think fake fluff and walking on eggshells around everyone are productive or beneficial. It takes me much more time to second guess every word I write and carefully word everything, where the information conveyed and the intent end up being exactly the same. I honestly think, that like you said, the problem is with the people getting insulted. When I talk to people, unless I know them very well, I try to give them the benefit of the doubt. This works great for me, I have no memory of ever being railed up by anyone who hasn't explicitly and undoubtedly tried to offend me and go personal. > > So yes, adding a point on humility and being able to express onself (free > speach as such) is highly recommanded as practical guidelines. And please, > keep keeping it simple and sane! Maybe we should add humility to the guidelines, I'm not sure about this one. I think humility is important, but I respect people's right not to be if they don't want to. > > Thanks Tom for this opportunity... > because I was goind to re-read a whole Gentoo forums thread to (re-)find > out those two important points. I haven't read that thread yet. It's just what makes sense to me. Glad to see more people agree. -- Tom. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Monitor 25 network devices or servers for free with OpManager! OpManager is web-based network management software that monitors network devices and physical & virtual servers, alerts via email & sms for fault. Monitor 25 devices for free with no restriction. Download now http://ad.doubleclick.net/ddm/clk/292181274;119417398;o _______________________________________________ enlightenment-devel mailing list enlightenment-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/enlightenment-devel
