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

[Aaron Bauman]

On Monday, May 16, 2016 3:56:01 PM JST Ian Delaney wrote:
> 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?
>

Apparently we do, because people will continue to find ways to complain about 
words and feelings.

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

No, everyone just has a different tolerance for words that hurt or don't hurt.  
Perceived intentions or the tone of a person behind a computer really doesn't 
matter to most. 

> 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

Next on bookshelves we will have "50 shades of Gentoo"... who is ready?!

> 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.
>

I appluad your efforts to ensure that the social aspect of Gentoo is a 
pleasant one.  The bottom line is that nothing wrong was said in this 
instance.

> > 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.
> >

Again, people come from various backgrounds and ideals so maybe it should be 
spelled out?  That is completely unfeasible though hence the new book...

> > 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.
>

I would prefer a simple "seriously...." email vice a report to QA and the 
revocation of my commit access.

> 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

blunder: "a stupid or careless mistake."  Are you redefining the word here or 
just calling the original violation stupid?  Because that would seriously hurt 
some feelings.  Semantics... what a condundrum.

> 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.
>

Thankfully someone is doing it.  If you choose not to contribute, out of fear 
of an individual behind a computer, you should reevaluate why you are doing 
this.

> 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.
>

Entitlement and privilege.  The true essence of this whole problem.  No one 
here wants to feel as though someone else is better or superior to them.  I 
can only imagine though, that people believe individuals are sitting behind 
their computers just waiting for a bad piece of code to be committed so they 
can shout at someone.  If either of those cases apply to anyone here you 
should find a new hobby.

> > 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

I agree as well.  However, the bottom line here is that nothing wrong was 
said, and a valid point was made to ensure the committer understood the 
severity of the mistake.  Move on.

-- 
Cheers,
Aaron Bauman
Gentoo Linux Developer
GnuPG FP: 1536 F4B3 72EB 9C54 11F5  5C43 246D 23A2 10FB 0F3E