Re: [gentoo-dev] Re: [gentoo-commits] repo/gentoo:master commit in: eclass/

[Ian Delaney]

On Sat, 14 May 2016 21:04:17 -0400
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote:

I hope I won't regret this

> On Sat, May 14, 2016 at 8:23 PM, Aaron Bauman <bman@g.o> wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 15, 2016 12:48:12 AM JST Ciaran McCreesh wrote:
>  [...]
>  [...]
>  [...]
> >
> > 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.
> >
>

No but it violates elements simply lot listed in the CoC. DO we need a
better CoC?

This undescribed level of professionalism is presumed assumed
knowledge, or 'understood', however the evidence suggests it is FAR
from 'understood'.

Here is a point worth highlighting.  While I find the language used to
deliver the message an affront to my social senses, b-man does not and
deems it apt to the situation. Herein therefore lies the dilemma.
Being a communication instance, there are no clear rights or wrongs,
but pure shades of grey. There are forms that most find fine and other
most find a violation of social etiquette. The result is that this
style of submissions and responses re issues over QA are tacitly
accepted as valid and therefore endorsed. There is at least one other
dev in high authority who has all but ticked the message as justified
in the circumstances, while in other instances has placed a cross to
the same dev's reply in a separate thread.

This is predominantly why I refrain from sticking my neck out over
this type of issue. Inevitably, by weight of numbers in the community,
there will be someone who will vehemently reject and counter the point
posed and attempt to shout it down as tripe. The point will be lost, or
at least diluted to a meaningless mush.

> 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.
>

rich0 here has hit the target a bullseye. The underlying attitude in
the initial post displays a belief of justification and entitlement to
'shout down' the colleague and treat him with disdain over the blunder.
This is NOT a bootcamp with paid drill sargeants.

As long as this persists and is not intervened to polish and tidy up,
g-devs will persist in making innocent, naive or incompetent blunders
and run the gauntlet of being publicly scolded over errata. I can only
express my view that this style of personal demeaning potentially
results in embarrassment, public humiliation and drives community
members away from participation. The ultimate negative influence. I
would never entertain taking on eclass writing with the incumbent qa
member delivering assessments under the title of 'code review' in the
style he does.

It is clear he has learned that he is not only entitled but expected to
shout at folk for misdemeanours. hasufell also believed this, and
scoffed when I suggested to him directly one never needs to shout, but
rather speak in tempered moderate terms.

Try it some time mgorny. The sky will not cave in.

> 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.
>

ditto

-- 
kind regards

Ian Delaney