On 15/05/16 02:04, Rich Freeman wrote: > On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote: >>> On Sun, 15 May 2016 08:40:39 +0900 >>> >>> Aaron Bauman <b...@gentoo.org> wrote: >>>> Please enlighten me as to what was impolite here? The strong >>>> language of "seriously" or definitively stating that the individual >>>> did not perform the necessary QA actions before committing? Both of >>>> which are completely called for and appropriate. No vulgarity, >>>> insults, or demeaning words were used. How would you have responded >>>> professionally? >>> It's important to remember that Gentoo is run by volunteers. Expecting >>> a professional standard when it comes to the quality of commit >>> criticism is unfair. >> Applying that same rationale, it would be unfair to say that an undescribed >> level of professionalism in communication is required as well. Nothing here >> violates the CoC. >> > If you're only able to behave in a professional manner if the > standards of professionalism are explicitly spelled out, I think > you're missing the point. > > Ultimately it is an attitude. When you point out a mistake make it > either about: > 1. Helping the person who made the mistake to improve because you > want to see them make better contributions (which they aren't going to > do if you drive them off). > 2. If you feel that somebody simply isn't going to cut it, then by > all means report them so that their commit access can be revoked. > > Either of these has the potential to make Gentoo better. Simply > posting flames isn't likely to change the behavior of people who need > #2, and it is likely to discourage people who need #1. Either is > against all of our interests in making the distro we benefit from > better. > +1
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
