Junio C Hamano wrote: > The intent behind the document might be a noble one, but I am afraid > that the text is too broad and vague and does not address the real > issue to be of practical use.
Drafting something like this is shit work, which explains why nobody has attempted it yet. I have no intent of collecting feedback and doing iterations: it's going to be an extraordinarily hard and boring task; _much_ worse than any technical documentation. Let me be clear that I have no hopes of landing this "patch": I just wanted to create a calm and rational atmosphere for people to discuss the problem, in the hopes of minimizing the chances of large frequent fires. If you think we should put _something_ in our tree, I suggest dumping a few raw emails from this thread into contrib/CommunityGuidelines/ (or something). > Taking one bullet point from the top for example: > > 0. You do not take offense, no matter what. If someone attacks > you irrationally, you do not respond. This is a public mailing > list, and we are all rational people: the attacker has already > humiliated herself in public, and everyone can see that. > > What does saying "we are all rational people" help when "the > attacker" poses a risk to destroy the community? What does "we are > all rational people" even mean in this sentence? I intended it as a way to reassure everyone that we will make unbiased, rational judgements to the extent possible. > It does not address the real cause of flamewars---why do rational > people feel the need to respond when an irrational comment is made, > e.g. when a reasonable review comments were responded not with > either "Yeah, you are right, thanks." or "Not really, because you > missed this case, I think..." but with nitpicks with immaterial > details or repetition without justification that takes account that > the reviewer is in disagreement and there must be some reason behind > it, i.e. a poisonous behaviour? There is no great truth about some hidden "real cause" to be found. For instance, in the one we just had, I would argue that it "started" with your non-patch "administriva" email with a huge number of people marked in the initial CC. Disaster waiting to happen, if you ask me. I'm not "blaming" you, but the lesson to be learnt is: avoid non-patch emails, and CC conservatively; if you want to discuss some changes, send a patch. That would explain why this very email is disguised as a "[PATCH]", with exactly one person in the initial CC. In short, the "reason" is a complex mix of various people's interactions under the current circumstances. Fires happen, and that is a fact; we can only look for common patterns and attempt to avoid fires by documenting these patterns as violations. Which is exactly what I have done (or attempted to do). > I suspect it mostly has to do with the desire to make sure that > bystanders do not get an impression that the one who speaks last > gives the conclusion to the discussion, so stating "The attacker > being the one who speaks last in the discussion does not mean the > conclusion is his." explicitly might be one way to make it more > practically useful by alleviating the urge to respond, instead of > saying "no matter what". That is one pattern, but by no means the only one or even the "most important" one. I thought 0 was a nice generalization. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
