2010/11/17 Máirín Duffy <duffy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>: > I am starting a new thread as we're veering a bit off-topic here. > On Wed, 2010-11-17 at 14:11 +0000, Robert 'Bob' Jensen wrote: >> I disagree, if someone disagrees with an agenda item there should be no >> requirement that they have an alternative idea. If a discussion is >> killed by someone playing "Devil's Advocate" perhaps there is another >> reason it died... like being flat out stupid. > > Perhaps in the situation of thinking an idea "flat out stupid" but > having no alternative, non-stupid idea to bring to the table, it's best > to simply not participate and let the idea die on accord of its own > merits. I'm not sure what benefit putting down ideas without offering > any hope of forward movement does for anyone involved if a problem needs > to be solved. Am I missing something? I think there's probably some middle ground here, so let me share a few thoughts. (Also please note that I'm speaking very generally here, and not specifically at any one person or group. This is something that has been weighing heavily on my mind for a while -- this conversation just gives me a good excuse to get some things off my chest.) 1) We're all fairly technical here, and we all find a certain pleasure in finding the "right" solution and solving the puzzle, for whatever version of "right" we happen to believe. It's also human nature to get caught up in projects so much that when people attack your project, you feel it's a personal attack against you. When I first got out of college, I had the opportunity to work for an electrical engineering firm, and got to sit in on many meetings we called "Critical Design Reviews". Imagine a group of ten or fifteen engineers in a room, concentrating on one aspect of a circuit or project or piece of software, and trying to make sure that it was the best it could be. You can imagine that there were lots of opinions, lots of ideas, and lots of criticisms as well. When done well, those meetings were very productive and helped ensure that the best designs won out over less viable alternatives. When done poorly, those meetings quickly devolved into group therapy sessions and personal grudge-matches. I was lucky enough to have a boss who was very adept at helping keep those meetings on track, and I can only hope that some of those skills have rubbed off onto me. One of the skills that I picked up from those meetings was to be more sensitive to people's tone as they give feedback. There's a time and a place for making an alternative proposal, and I can see certain times where it might be enough simply to say "it's obvious that this idea isn't well thought-out". The key, I think, is in looking at the tone of the opposition. Is the person opposing the idea doing it with an eye toward making the end result better, or in simply tearing down the idea (or person who came up with the proposed design). In short, is the disagreement about "what's right", or "who is right"? My own goal for Fedora would be that we could keep things on a civil, mature, and professional level and talk about the technicalities without slipping into the trap of tearing people down. Please understand that my goal is *not* to silence honest criticism -- I think honest feedback cycles are vital to our health as a community and as a distribution. My goal, however, is to make sure that the feedback is made in a way that helps Fedora move forward and not tear down the very people who make our community great. 2) There's a time for talk, and there's a time for action. I love the Chinese proverb that says "Talk doesn't cook rice." We can talk about an idea or proposal or decision until we're blue in the face, but at some point, the time for talk has passed and it's time to move forward. I'd even be so bold as to proffer that sometimes forward movement (even if it's not in the exact direction we want to go) is better than no movement at all. (Please note that I'm not advocating blind charges into the great unknown without listening to feedback -- there's obviously a balance that needs to be found here.) Speaking for myself for a moment, I find that I'm typically much more eager to go along with an idea when I can see that the person making the proposal is willing to put in time and effort to make things better. I'd much rather have someone say "I disagree with your proposal, and I'm willing to show you a better way" than "Your idea is stupid." One response leads me to move forward, the other only bruises my ego and makes me less interested in listening. And I'll be honest here -- the last several months have taught me that there's probably too much navel-gazing going on in our community. If I had a magic solution for solving that problem, you'd be the first to know. I do believe, however, that civil dialog is the first step towards moving forward. -- Jared Smith Fedora Project Leader _______________________________________________ advisory-board mailing list advisory-board@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/advisory-board
