"Robin H. Johnson" <robbat2@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> On Mon, Jun 10, 2013 at 04:04:29PM +0200, Matthieu Moy wrote:
>> Célestin Matte <celestin.matte@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>
>> > Le 10/06/2013 15:28, Ramkumar Ramachandra a écrit :
>> >> 0. You do not take offense, no matter what. If someone attacks you
>> >> irrationally, you do not respond. This is a public mailing list, and
>> >> we are all rational people: the attacker has already humiliated
>> >> herself in public, and everyone can see that.
>> >
>> > "Herself"?
>> > Typo I guess :)
>>
>> Not necessarily. It's quite common in english to use "she" when the
>> gender is not known.
> Could you please use "themself" instead?
I think "himself or herself" is the politically correct form ;-)
But more seriously.
The intent behind the document might be a noble one, but I am afraid
that the text is too broad and vague and does not address the real
issue to be of practical use.
Taking one bullet point from the top for example:
0. You do not take offense, no matter what. If someone attacks
you irrationally, you do not respond. This is a public mailing
list, and we are all rational people: the attacker has already
humiliated herself in public, and everyone can see that.
What does saying "we are all rational people" help when "the
attacker" poses a risk to destroy the community? What does "we are
all rational people" even mean in this sentence?
It does not address the real cause of flamewars---why do rational
people feel the need to respond when an irrational comment is made,
e.g. when a reasonable review comments were responded not with
either "Yeah, you are right, thanks." or "Not really, because you
missed this case, I think..." but with nitpicks with immaterial
details or repetition without justification that takes account that
the reviewer is in disagreement and there must be some reason behind
it, i.e. a poisonous behaviour?
I suspect it mostly has to do with the desire to make sure that
bystanders do not get an impression that the one who speaks last
gives the conclusion to the discussion, so stating "The attacker
being the one who speaks last in the discussion does not mean the
conclusion is his." explicitly might be one way to make it more
practically useful by alleviating the urge to respond, instead of
saying "no matter what".
I dunno.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe git" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html