<div dir="ltr"><div><div><div><div>To address your point about:<br><br>"My subjective estimation is that discussing this a bit further is more<br>
constructive than working on a CoC. What parts of the discussion were<br>
unfortunate, exactly, and why?"<br><br></div>The problem with just discussing it further here is that:<br></div><div> a) Nothing specific needs to get explicitly agreed upon, so we can all leave with our own interpretations and conclusions of what was decided<br></div><div> b) We're 20-something emails into an email chain. All of us discussing will have developed more nuanced views, but for example a new person coming to the community will have no idea about what was discussed here.<br><br></div>A CoC, on the other hand, is a big neon sign at the front door of the community, summarizing the basic bullet points of what we can agree we want our community to be.<br><br></div>(By the way, I agreed with much of what you talked about but I think your points could have been made without calling anyone else out by name. Just my 2c.)<br><br></div>Tom<br><br><div><div><div><br><br><div><div><br><br></div></div></div></div></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Apr 28, 2017 at 5:49 AM, lennart spitzner <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lsp@informatik.uni-kiel.de" target="_blank">lsp@informatik.uni-kiel.de</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">A couple weeks earlier there was a discussion on tuple instances on this list<br>
that got somewhat out of hand, leading to a meta-discussion on civility.<br>
There was the suggestion to create and endorse a CoC for this community.<br>
<br>
Now both topics have not received much further contribution, an indication that<br>
not much more can be gained from these discussions. Yet I have a bad<br>
feeling about leaving them in such a manner, because: There is no real<br>
conclusion, there is no agreement, and I do not see much advancement of how<br>
we, as a community, cope with negative situations. And while I can understand<br>
that there is little incentive/motivation to continue due to negative<br>
emotions involved, I also fear that ending discussions on such negative<br>
emotions will discourage contributions in general not only now, but in the<br>
future as well.<br>
<br>
So I will dare to continue, ask a couple of questions, and make some<br>
suggestions:<br>
<br>
1. At which point of the particular tuple instance discussion would it have<br>
helped to have some CoC, and in what way? Is the hope that the participants<br>
had considered this CoC and not said something in the way that they did?<br>
Or would it have allowed us to quickly point out the CoC at some specific<br>
point in response to some mail? Or something else?<br>
<br>
I _can_ see a couple of instances where a CoC could have been pointed out,<br>
but these don't convince me, because<br>
a) in those cases giving clear, respectful negative feedback (for example<br>
regarding "joking") (would/should) have worked just as well if not better<br>
and<br>
b) because simply pointing out the CoC during a discussion is rather<br>
non-constructive because it is a vague form of criticism and the<br>
receiving party will most likely consider it inappropriate, and so it has<br>
the opposite effect.<br>
<br>
2. on a related note, I have a hard time pinpointing the moment in the<br>
discussion where things transitioned from cool to flaming. I'd perhaps name<br>
as important factors the useless rhetoric (go and ask those mathematicians)<br>
and the case of hiding behind "it was a dumb joke" followed by what in my<br>
eyes reads like a dishonest apology. But I am not certain and perhaps<br>
unfair.<br>
<br>
My subjective estimation is that discussing this a bit further is more<br>
constructive than working on a CoC. What parts of the discussion were<br>
unfortunate, exactly, and why? The general opinion here seems to be to<br>
ask for civility without naming names. I disagree: I have little hope that<br>
giving the vague feedback to all participants that some parts of the<br>
discussion were non-constructive/disrespectful will improve things in the<br>
future.<br>
<br>
As an example, we might take the following advice from this:<br>
"Humour is important and generally welcome, but it is necessary to be<br>
especially careful to make it clear when exactly we talk in jest, and to<br>
not let slip phrases that can easily interpreted as offensive if not<br>
interpreted as a joke. We will not accept retroactively hiding behind<br>
'it was a joke'."<br>
<br>
(perhaps some people think such a statement belonged in a CoC, but then<br>
this is a different/more specific kind of advice than what I can see in<br>
existing/proposed CoCs.)<br>
<br>
3. And back to first discussion: I refuse to vote -1 or +1, because the topic<br>
is more nuanced than that. Instead, I vote for the following:<br>
"Additional tuple instances shall be added after such a point in time where<br>
either the methods have been renamed as to avoid confusion, or after the<br>
generic versions are no longer exposed in the default Prelude.<br>
(and whether this point will come is intentionally left open.)"<br>
<br>
4. And reflecting on the previous point, I encourage all participants to try to<br>
not make pure -1/+1 votes, but to include conditions under which they may<br>
switch, especially for controversial subjects. I have hopes that this will<br>
help finding a majority-backed compromise.<br>
<br>
5. It would help to have the discussion and the arguments made by both sides<br>
archived somewhere other than on the mailing list. In one of the last<br>
mails I wrote to this list I implicitly complained about the<br>
signal-to-noise, and to be clear, I don't mean that any messages consist<br>
of noise. But it can easily take a couple of mails back-and-forth to get<br>
some point across, and these threads can grow to over a hundred mails<br>
quickly.<br>
I realize that the main issue here of course is the amount of work it would<br>
mean to somewhat objectively summarize an (often heated) debate. But then<br>
the alternative is the reiteration of the same topics in an almost<br>
predicable frequency.<br>
Thoughts?<br>
<br>
(Sorry, Tony, for somewhat singling out the "joking" as the negative example.<br>
This might be unfair. You have a valid point, but conveyed it rather poorly<br>
especially to the end of the discussion.)<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
-- lennart<br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>