On Sun, 21 Jan 2007, jim stockford wrote:
> no need for apology on my side. there's
> no agreed-upon and expressed policy.
> i like the model that we accept each
> other as we are.
[meta; not really related to Python programming]
Hi Jim,
I did want to bring up that there are some community-held expectations on
what to write on the list. They're certainly not set in stone, but it's
helpful to know about them. Here's one description of an otherwise
unspoken expectation:
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html#writewell
Generally, when we see someone being too frustrated by a problem to
describe it properly to the rest of us, that's something that should be
brought up to the poster, so that they can improve their writing on the
Tutor list.
When we do so, we're not trying to coerse the poster to change who they
are personally, because that would be domination. But we are trying to
say that if they are primarily focused on describing their frustration
rather than the problem itself, they stand a good chance at succeeding.
That is, they can risk frustrating the people who they are asking for
help, and that's not good.
When Kent complained about the swearing, that was taken a little
superficially. Swearing isn't really the Big Problem. He was really
asking: "Can you start describing the problem more precisely so we can get
to work helping you?"
We just want to make sure the goal structure of questions on Tutor doesn't
lean toward: "I don't know what I'm doing, and the buggy system sucks, and
I'm so angry that I want people to sympathize with my anger."
Rather: "I don't know what I'm doing, here's what I've done so far, and I
hope I wrote enough information for people to help me."
Best of wishes!
_______________________________________________
Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
