From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 27090 invoked from network); 15 Apr 2021 10:33:30 -0000 Received: from zero.zsh.org (2a02:898:31:0:48:4558:7a:7368) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 15 Apr 2021 10:33:30 -0000 ARC-Seal: i=1; cv=none; a=rsa-sha256; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; t=1618482810; b=oyCiGJvw0rdNu21SGOmJ+01eIvBoU9dLaFBt/YLVCR+DApObG2RN3nMXPOZutq1igubjHW5FvL HJ5HqUv8CN0bwco9w8bv6PxBZK2kjZLaiEjThYVdPOpdVElUVVO3WbP1l7OgaL92XHCRs18b/U Xr4YqoiVZAulTG8VW6bnWxijHwIE3W0x8zl66dTdoJRifHeSGtwIEoXXkm++Lbmr33zNAmFqRx W8xEUU2B0LsEQkkbmoyu779jWhRAljmTeTX1nCdCQoPtTvqxO80WYl2u+rEkXJKWIYoX2p/2yJ 0MbtcvhqQ+E25Vl3/Y9MVCCQeQApKAZbVDrFYo/45sv9sw==; ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; zsh.org; iprev=pass (gmmr1.centrum.cz) smtp.remote-ip=46.255.225.252; dkim=pass header.d=volny.cz header.s=mail header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=pass header.from=volny.cz; arc=none ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; t=1618482810; bh=mTB1QZf8m5RwjKqVI4Hbap1xDrRzTtUv/6cJtNATjvU=; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe:List-Subscribe:List-Help: List-Id:Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:Message-ID: MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:From:Date:Subject:To:DKIM-Signature: DKIM-Signature; b=KNegKNU9smCB1O9e6+xDu+Fo1Ol/vUBc4tfQc6zrW8+RVBkX/7MLNIWtu6Qu4hPQVwm1pIUg6K 5OWIsHM0u3gpUY8nCoy/HWXojDRxtFjEt4uy/XcXzfWOzQKRQhaeVij+KDicpzXMc7StaQERWa qZ5LYK0JGVa/KA/su5RE/vKVdeQxVbmL81YnijBEYHnfhaoFDGbzB2gMtTNpiGFgIQw7BE/34d eSaF+av4heXskJfobQgB/zq0H7h4x3kiePOhaHd+LLZyFhMc4OD5jNpu051MER22dc3QTTmA9g 7uXuffeOWPNB8pCoMcrHJVXD9l4byQay2lmjB5SHGPmxfw==; DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=zsh.org; s=rsa-20200801; h=List-Archive:List-Owner:List-Post:List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe:List-Help:List-Id:Sender:Content-Transfer-Encoding: Content-Type:Message-Id:MIME-Version:In-Reply-To:References:Cc:From:Date: Subject:To:Reply-To:Content-ID:Content-Description:Resent-Date:Resent-From: Resent-Sender:Resent-To:Resent-Cc:Resent-Message-ID; bh=E7f/IZXlCDBoGP67vXmaSWz6sYwDPvNqPz8E1/JhBTQ=; b=Nfm0uSEddnHRprws3HsCIVeEVG +qYqvWmuzeIv0jnRqv6arbMvZEQoLBscTLAYvmsJPH+vIuX1LojlofPfClj1FjwfLLb68lQYLrauC WNiQrBY1Fco8RBeNgALxGSPan0O1d8oYD3U3qwy8H5SZlbP/SDcMwk+750Yz0Ni46Ddb27Lg4c4um nUkcUHwALjYHPC6H5Ff3lO0ByzsQhn1S5JUPuXSrbg0VVs1nSDPMIahRZILTz6b4Cj8oGFatN2rYQ YMPYJl9FaYnpynPCAEUQ3cdvTVW8gkj7qsUhfCb5oPbHlj3T7OiJy6ZksWzr0CyhN2f8NbSLfBHKd VgBJ6rJw==; Received: from authenticated user by zero.zsh.org with local id 1lWzJR-0002GW-JC; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:33:29 +0000 Authentication-Results: zsh.org; iprev=pass (gmmr1.centrum.cz) smtp.remote-ip=46.255.225.252; dkim=pass header.d=volny.cz header.s=mail header.a=rsa-sha256; dmarc=pass header.from=volny.cz; arc=none Received: from gmmr1.centrum.cz ([46.255.225.252]:57614) by zero.zsh.org with esmtps (TLS1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) id 1lWzJA-00022d-7s; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 10:33:13 +0000 Received: from gmmr-2.centrum.cz (unknown [10.255.254.39]) by gmmr1.centrum.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id 306958001A44; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:33:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=volny.cz; s=mail; t=1618482791; bh=E7f/IZXlCDBoGP67vXmaSWz6sYwDPvNqPz8E1/JhBTQ=; h=To:Subject:Date:From:Cc:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=mjOjGusqOISMuyRAxJWGmWmT3Qx0AtndsDV3vZVJuUFbJmTEoOIjy/IVQk2WwvPuu c0oyPkgQgX2vdl/POPdqAgCpGQMb2ds467PSpOVNOXo3OenDVLNPyQHPySTcnTYovv fteIZyWRTS+fmrh2NmtgniSt4felNYUAkRVMcV0U= Received: from vm2.excello.cz (vm2.excello.cz [212.24.139.173]) by gmmr-2.centrum.cz (Postfix) with QMQP id 2F14477DF; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:33:11 +0200 (CEST) Received: from vm2.excello.cz by vm2.excello.cz (VF-Scanner: Clear:RC:0(46.255.227.205):SC:0(-4.0/5.0):CC:0:; processed in 0.3 s); 15 Apr 2021 10:33:11 +0000 X-VF-Scanner-ID: 20210415103310.915075.6425.vm2.excello.cz.0 Received: from gmmr-4.centrum.cz (46.255.227.205) by out1.virusfree.cz with ESMTPS (TLSv1.3, TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384); 15 Apr 2021 12:33:10 +0200 Received: from mail1009.cent (unknown [10.255.254.20]) by gmmr-4.centrum.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id D94A820056054; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:33:10 +0200 (CEST) Received: by mail1009.cent (Postfix, from userid 33) id D1A202004B348; Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:33:10 +0200 (CEST) To: "Marlon" Subject: =?utf-8?q?RE=3A_=5BMETA=5D_Tone_of_voice_=2F_Writing_style_in_patch_reviews_=28was_Re=3A_Patch_bumping=29?= Received: from 46.135.84.18 by mail1009.centrum.cz (centrum.cz multimail) with HTTP Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2021 12:33:10 +0200 From: Cc: References: <20210329171120.GA6044@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2>, , <20210329181452.GB6044@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2>, , , , <18618-1617324651.844569@tlsn.0hle.fett>, <2c44b17c-407d-449e-be2e-610db313c1d7@www.fastmail.com>, , , <20210413123200.GI6819@tarpaulin.shahaf.local2>, In-Reply-To: X-Mailer: Centrum Email 5.3 X-Priority: 3 X-Original-From: MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <20210415123310.0CC40112@volny.cz> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Seq: 48585 Archived-At: X-Loop: zsh-workers@zsh.org Errors-To: zsh-workers-owner@zsh.org Precedence: list Precedence: bulk Sender: zsh-workers-request@zsh.org X-no-archive: yes List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Haai, "Marlon" wrote: >Hi, all! > > After writing workers/48583, Disclaimer: didn't read that. Should me? > I would like to add something to this that I think is even more important= for keeping new contributors motivated to stay engaged (from the same reso= urce as above): > > From [Praise and Criticism](https://producingoss.com/en/managing-particip= ants.html#praise-and-criticism): >> An important feature of technical culture is that detailed, dispassionat= e criticism is often taken as a kind of praise (as discussed in the section= called "Recognizing Rudeness"), because of the implication that the recipi= ent's work is worth the time required to analyze it. However, both of those= conditions -- detailed and dispassionate -- must be met for this to be tru= e. For example, if someone makes a sloppy change to the code, it is useless= (and actually harmful) to follow up saying simply "That was sloppy." Slopp= iness is ultimately a characteristic of a person, not of their work, and it= 's important to keep your reactions focused on the work. It's much more eff= ective to describe all the things wrong with the change, tactfully and with= out malice. A work tends to inherit some (many?) of the creator's characteristics, though. And devastating criticism can be easily given without malice. The flip side of the latter is that lavish praise can be given without good feelings on the part of the praiser. Me's new here (obviously), but to me, it's actually a relief that toes do not appear to be easily stepped on. That's different in much of the {,``OSS'' }world. Me*thinks* me knows why, but that would appear to be beyond the scope of this discussion. > From [Recognizing Rudeness](https://producingoss.com/en/you-are-what-you-= write.html#rudeness): >> So what is rude? >> >> By the same principle under which detailed technical criticism is a form= of flattery, failure to provide quality criticism can be a kind of insult.= I don't mean simply ignoring someone's work, be it a proposal, code change= , new ticket filing, or whatever. Unless you explicitly promised a detailed= reaction in advance, it's usually okay to simply not react at all. People = will assume you just didn't have time to say anything. But if you do react,= don't skimp: take the time to really analyze things, provide concrete exam= ples where appropriate, dig around in the archives to find related posts fr= om the past, etc. Or if you don't have time to put in that kind of effort, = but still need to write some sort of brief response, then state the shortco= ming openly in your message ("I think there's a ticket filed for this, but = unfortunately didn't have time to search for it, sorry"). The main thing is= to recognize the existence of the cultural norm, either by fulfilling it o= r by openly acknowledging that one has fallen short this time. Either way, = the norm is strengthened. But failing to meet that norm, while at the same = time not explaining why you failed to meet it, is like saying the topic (an= d those participating in it) was not worth much of your time -- that your t= ime is more valuable than theirs. Better to show that your time is valuable= by being terse than by being lazy. Cultural norms vary from place to place -- otherwise it wouldn't be culture. Are you suggesting that the cultural norm on this list be changed...?=20 > I know I am new to this project, but I found Daniel's tone of voice/writi= ng style in workers/48571 quite rude, both on a personal level and accordin= g to the definition above. Let's not treat each other like this, shall we? = Just point out why and how you think I should fix the mistakes I make, and = I will be happy to oblige. But if you neither explain _why_ what I did was = wrong nor _how_ I should fix it, then your feedback is neither constructive= nor actionable. Rude? You know what's rude? "Don't see the point, sorry.". Or purposefully ignorning trivial patches to obvious problems, even after n pings. Or mud-slinging them (not even bothering to make a good flame) because the author isn't liked. Or shunning a contributor 'cause he can't help but point out larger issues along the way, issues too big for them to chew. All of that, and more, has happened to me. And rest assured me's not the only one. Again, there's a flip side: fluffy and sweet coders, who may've followed a course in coding or two, but have no idea how to program, let alone how to communicate about programming. Many of those mantain projects, perhaps even projects that you and me depend on. Me'd argue that's no good, either. Some ballast is needed. Now, me's not going to stick too many feathers up the butt of a person me's only exchanged a couple of msgs with, yet... compared to the above attiudes, the "friendly, to-the-point" style of Daniel is $DEITY_RESIDENCE to me. That leaves me to wonder if the "do your homework" bit is what ticked you off in particular. > Finally, I would like to quote two points from [The 10 Commandments of Eg= oless Programming](https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-ten-commandments-of-eg= oless-programming/): >> 5. Treat people who know less than you with respect, deference, and pati= ence. Nontechnical people who deal with developers on a regular basis almos= t universally hold the opinion that we are prima donnas at best and crybabi= es at worst. Don't reinforce this stereotype with anger and impatience. Most self-declared "techies" *are* primadonnas and crybabies. $UNDEITY_RESIDENCE, even many of those that *are* actually competent, are successfully running major projects, and are generally safe and secure in their current social position, act that way. Me supposes they're just lusers in disguise. >> [...] >> 10. Critique code instead of people - be kind to the coder, not to the c= ode. As much as possible, make all of your comments positive and oriented t= o improving the code. As me's more than hinted at above: code is often an extension of its creator. Even if the reviewer can make the distinction, the creator often can't. The reality is that many creators have long toes, but that makes them just as responsible for implementing the obvious workaround: "Keep a little distance.". > Kind regards, > --Marlon > > PS: Look, I even fixed the indentation of my quote attribution lines for = you, Daniel, in this email. You can't say I don't listen. ;) That's great, but please, next time when you quote from a WWW page, do fold(1) the paragraphs. Take care, --zeurkous. =2D-=20 Friggin' Machines!