Jason H (25 October 2018 16:43) contributed:
Mitch, you wrote:
>> To me it seems like you guys are saying:
>>> "I don't care if this person treats me like crap because they sure
>>> can code."
>> I'm happy for you if you've gotten this far in life and decided that
>> you like being insulted in exchange for someone reviewing your code
>> (or even just asking a question on IRC), but personally I do not like
>> it. I'm more than capable of standing up for myself, but other people
>> who feel the same way may not feel comfortable speaking out.
> I do not want to contemplate the emotional state of being of the
> author when reviewing and leaving comments on gerrit.
I do want to encourage you to think about how you phrase your criticisms
of others' code; in particular, by "contemplating the emotional state
of" an author being so criticised (this is what empathy is about).
> Many times when I an giving technical feedback, I have been told "[I]
> sound harsh." I'm just being factual.
Two ways of saying the same thing may have identical information content
(i.e. they're both "just being factual"), yet have different emotional
content. One does not have to bend over backwards to treat folk gently:
it is enough to just think about the ways of phrasing your feed-back
that respectfully invite them to notice their error rather than just
telling them they're wrong. With practice, it comes quite naturally to
think in terms of "what can I say that will give this person the same
understanding I have" rather than just proving that you know better than
them.
> I never call into the matter anything about the person,
There are more ways to wind people up than direct ad hominem attacks.
Phrasing may hint that you think no-one but an idiot would fail to
notice the thing you happen to know, that they don't. You might not
even intend that hint, but it may yet come across. In particular, if
you *do* think that only an idiot would fail to see what you're pointing
out, please pause to remember that contributors to Qt seldom actually
are idiots and think about what might lead a perfectly reasonable and
smart person to be unaware of the thing you are so familiar with that
you take it for granted.
> but some people still do get butt-hurt when you talk about their code
> negatively because it is their art. They then can project that
> criticism of the code onto themself. This is nothing I want to be in
> the position of being responsible for. As long as my comments are
> accurate and not unduly harsh, they are (or at least should be deemed)
> appropriate.
Leaving aside whether this should or shouldn't be covered by a code of
conduct, that is an attitude I feel I have a duty to challenge. I am
quite capable of forgetting that others can't keep up with some of what
comes easily to me; and I have had decades of colleagues calmly pointing
out to me that perhaps what's obvious to me might not be known by
everyone else. Eventually I learned to stop and think about whether
what was obvious to me was, in fact, obvious to everyone else. It turns
out that, with the vast breadth and complexity of the world of software,
that there are many of us who are used to taking for granted things that
others don't know about; and, unless we stop to remind ourselves that
those we're talking to might be less familiar with the matter, we end up
being quite rude without even thinking about it. It is, indeed, the not
thinking about it that *is* rude.
I was annoyingly pedantic until I learned that, in fact, communication
is at least as much (and, when done competently, more) about the other
person's understanding than mine.
> Next, we have the notion that the CoC was somehow agreed to at the
> Contributors summit.
Well, those at that meeting in the CS agreed to move forward with it.
Ulf has, quite properly, done their bidding. He has also, quite properly,
publicised this on the list *precisely* so that those who can't make it
to Contributors summits, or at least missed that one, or were in one of
the other parallel sessions at the time, have the chance to express their
views on the matter. If nothing else, those who chose to attend that
particular session, even among those at the CS, shall have been to some
degree self-selecting as a group more likely to favour a CoC.
So please don't interpret this as a steam-rolling of a CoC regardless of
what folk want: it's the next step in a process started by some folk who
did call for it; at this step, we get to see how the rest of the
community feels about it,
Eddy.
_______________________________________________
Development mailing list
Development@qt-project.org
http://lists.qt-project.org/mailman/listinfo/development
