Felipe Contreras wrote: > I think there's an even more important number 0: > > Always assume good faith. When discussing through digital mediums, > it's very easy to misconstrue the tone and intentions of other > parties, so it's better to err on the side of caution, and if one is > mistaken, assuming good faith doesn't cause harm, while the contrary > does irreparable damage. This does not mean that one should continue > to assume good faith when there's evidence to the contrary. Agreed. "Always assume good faith" is a good rule of thumb. >> 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. > > An even better and less absolutist version would be: I went for the absolutist version because I felt that this point needs to be driven in harder. This is the biggest problem, in my opinion. But yeah, your version is more technically correct. >> 3. Thou shalt not commit logical fallacies. The ones that are most >> common on this list: strawman, ad hominem, burden of proof, false >> cause, the texas sharpshooter, and appeal to authority. > > It might be better to turn this negative rule into a positive one: > "Discuss on the basis of logic and evidence". Then you can describe > the common logical fallacies, and I would add "If you make a claim, be > prepared it to defend it with evidence, or add an appropriate > qualifier; probably, most likely, I think, etc." Good addition. >> If someone breaks one of these rules, there's a very simple way to >> communicate this to them: you don't respond to their email. >> Optionally, respond to their email off-list calmly explaining what >> went wrong. > > I think you should reply, but not to her, to the mailing list, asking > for others to don't reply. Then mute the thread. I already explained > that about in the comment about flamewars. I don't think "neglect" is the solution to anything. We don't want contributors to feel neglected; we want to make them understand that their behavior was undesirable because of reasons X, Y, and Z. In a raging fire, they might not be able to see these reasons clearly. > There's a corollary to that that works rather well in the LKML; you > are permitted one flamewar per year. I'm not going to explain why this > is a good thing, because unfortunately there's an irrational negative > bias against me already, but there's a reason why this is a good rule. > Even if you don't agree it's only one flamewar per year per person, > it's not that much. I suppose it's a way for people to vent built-up emotion. Flamewars will happen, no matter what we do; we cannot control the actions of others. If too many people want to start a fire, we can do nothing: I don't propose an iron hand of suffocation. My objective is more realistic: it is to make people realize the undesirable effects and "minimize" fires. -- 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