1 |
Jeroen, |
2 |
|
3 |
|
4 |
On 06/16/10 21:31, Jeroen Roovers wrote: |
5 |
> 1) that there are probably some good examples of the bad tone that sping |
6 |
> referred to, perhaps in the devrel/userrel domain and therefore not |
7 |
> initially public, and that unless those projects fail (to uphold the |
8 |
> CoC), we should probably not be talking about it on a public mailing |
9 |
> list. |
10 |
|
11 |
from demanding a friendly tone on other mailing lists myself and the |
12 |
private "thank you, I was afraid this was accepted around here" replies |
13 |
after I prefer to keep tone discussions in the open as far as possible. |
14 |
Our user base wouldn't know we care about tone if we discussed it in |
15 |
private. |
16 |
|
17 |
On the conflict resolution I would go as far as stating that DevRel |
18 |
currently fails at that. I'll start a new thread on that. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
> 2) that "tone" is unavoidably a subjective matter, which is precisely |
22 |
> the reason that some in our community choose consciously to be concise, |
23 |
> informative and dispassionate, while you might infer that this results |
24 |
> in curt, graceless and unaffectionate communication, or "bad tone" in |
25 |
> short. |
26 |
|
27 |
I agree that's though to do well. |
28 |
|
29 |
Best, |
30 |
|
31 |
|
32 |
|
33 |
Sebastian |