On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ian Delaney <idel...@gentoo.org> wrote: > On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:56:28 -0700 > Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: > >> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:17 AM, wraeth <wra...@wraeth.id.au> wrote: > >> > >> > I feel that it is inappropriate for criticisms of contributor's >> > work to be broadcast on a mailing list that is read not only by the >> > developer community, but by users as well, without their consent. >> > This is not a case where I am particularly embarrassed or upset - >> > if others can learn from my mistakes, then they are mistakes I am >> > happy to make (preferably only once). But doing so publicly, with >> > identifying information, is inappropriate. >> >> Good grief. Seriously? >> >> Mailing list review is the *norm* in the free software world. >> > > Oh, the norm
You're being quite rude with attempted mockery -- actually, the rest of your reply is pretty abrupt as well. If you want to fight, find someone and some place and else. Otherwise if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion, please read on. >> I haven't seen anything noted that should have caused embarrassment. >> > > Nor I. >> This whole thing, as far as I can see, is about improving the quality >> of Gentoo. I have learned from the reviewers reviewing my commits and >> the commits of others. > > The you haven't been embarrassed or demeaned or nitpicked. So far. Good. >> It's extremely valuable to do this in public >> and the idea that noting an error on a public mailing list is somehow >> bad is simply misguided. >> > > You throw your opinion on that of a user offering his personal > reaction. What do you want here? Users to comply to your perspective > and fit in? Users to tough out the exposure to full public view even if > they don't like it? I want to set expectations and explain that noting a mistake is not anything to be self-conscious or embarrassed about. > Once and for all this is a review put onto recipients whether they > wanted it or not without their request or consent. A key aspect of > learning is that the informative experience be made a positive one. > This user is not alone. These self appointed educators have background > in technical prowess and that's all. Quite simply, dishing out lessons > that make users cringe and recoil is counter productive. This exercise Why and where was a review "dished out" that made someone cringe or recoil? I suspect this is just a strawman. > is about educating, so these educators had better get their heads > around some the fundamental requirement to command respect from their > target audience. To date they have managed to deliver their product as > they see fit. Now they get the feedback that follows from delivering > their lessons. > > These educators have already started to learn some lessons of their > own. An intrinsic aspect of the flow of teaching / educating is the > impact of teacher behaviour upon their learners and a teacher's > responsibility as an educator to deal with it productively. What's > happening here? Teacher says take it because I gave it to you,now be > quiet ? No. It's a discussion. Review can be responded to -- reviewers aren't intrinsically right. > This is not a captive audience. It's an immediately convenient one. > Educators snubbed by their students are not educators. At least not > effective ones. These students are so by nature of their own > voluntary participation. They have the option of rejecting these > lessons at their whim. Patch review is widely accepted as a quality-improving tool. Some have had difficulty adjusting to it when coming from, for instance, the closed-source world, primarily because they equate making a mistake to personal failure (and as such, having it pointed out in public makes it worse). http://sarah.thesharps.us/2014/09/01/the-gentle-art-of-patch-review/ offers a good explanation. "The most productive contributors see each mistake they make as a growth opportunity, instead of a personal failure."
