From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:478a::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms9.migadu.com with LMTPS id 6PhFBik1+mRBkAAAauVa8A:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 22:40:09 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:478a::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id 6PhFBik1+mRBkAAAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 22:40:09 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9164856342 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2023 22:40:08 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=ZR23+2bE; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1694119209; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=dBQOxxcsYwqv5/sJmCgy1P9j29DpViwEd181NhsUfQg=; b=ZtR8/eHBfM4Ldmtfeu/VkPGUkiswQbneioMJoRWrIFwDKyzaxQD1xvr6PVkpoZELjA2CRD asZPj5NgotMtkusbFG9FAEK457B/CVXplW8f+LVReaj75Nv2hM8Z4VBeZDzaKIDh4V8aXO q2hfQ5DgmdiX+NZz9LT0qi9vHdFcl8oaXxG0Uc5F66rXVJS65w1gz+WtpmUrNrQNTPCkNi DDyMLNmF1gCoH+AZjeVAMgzKoJnCChRFuZ835+iPUdvJ7G/ZQW4oZEz7CKfsFKQj1e6uAZ hcDpEL9xdSAcLQ4S7ip5anDD2QlXU3ktMCI6uicuqTmt/R8shIiJ+NpR8NUXHg== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1694119209; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=LX+84SlJ8HX/JQs8zIR3Y73jly0fsdSJepPHFXyZSSDN/7HyTb3J8yMHclZ03qoY8GOIcl JV5BYmCF2RwjDUhIcBo144/OdxE172hrq+d4SnLXm0Rso1QVoi2Vb8D1FUUUTq1p1cMdzy TUQPOAoTdyVpIVvH26GGzNzRg5v7dhUK3XnKVbf7t+f/1EJObSmQFYn+VT/3Jm/GpcqTU1 1xormGR0QRRgKXDh1LeTk+QumgrFJzNebMeWkmkB1abwtSSDIZzToTRaNGKeIPofwq5S80 s7S5fdjNRO2669mS8Lk60iBGdQyb2lZsI5hu7RnV9GSZX6ssdawNETmzHA04pQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=ZR23+2bE; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qeLmq-0003w0-FP; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 16:39:36 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qeLmo-0003vm-V5 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 16:39:34 -0400 Received: from mail-oa1-x2e.google.com ([2001:4860:4864:20::2e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qeLmm-0003MA-5w for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 16:39:34 -0400 Received: by mail-oa1-x2e.google.com with SMTP id 586e51a60fabf-1c50438636fso958795fac.1 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 13:39:31 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1694119171; x=1694723971; darn=gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :newsgroups:cc:to:subject:from:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=dBQOxxcsYwqv5/sJmCgy1P9j29DpViwEd181NhsUfQg=; b=ZR23+2bE57J+132y6oukQiLCSp2CMKjS1GeOI6nZcr78Wzw3jBotTGsVH4ovsLUmNV 2AyvR5uhsG6g5tuF2kPLp50JMVIJil6VZU5Sk4St7slqE8ehPlxektHhIp6+nOucQZi1 T/LFDHbv6oUmzQqxNqVawGhoj3dmE14ODa88GXxzEam/EhsHRirjjcVO8R7zJQ1z0/CO XpUpfiP2O76VAOSJwr73H8GXBqODAnlkVLEA4kIwNz9P01FqZo/gFIWr2/BaqNTjsplA KAKiJiehC3JetghpwmFqrz6/AE15iHWgn8XVrK4O9LVv6tJnGtFk1gtqRekHlSrOFpsN VWFg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1694119171; x=1694723971; h=content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:content-language:references :newsgroups:cc:to:subject:from:user-agent:mime-version:date :message-id:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=dBQOxxcsYwqv5/sJmCgy1P9j29DpViwEd181NhsUfQg=; b=veFiCeBz1QCTwsZlNgpuQMfswIuuMUfrxCgy+1l3mt00LNWaIsgL+wHoMnDxpCOrpD 54hH6GOhUD/Rpn1KsYctxFHQtwaf/QrdcxJD9lbTMKy8gG2KUfiN+zG6L8abVmKq97tU 1Ne6Fme5FLFiBQJMFyi5TW4m8zkuI6/u29YxpwAfWq9ZdmsoGSH3IR2x6BVdf6ekxp5b +ukX9n7qumAdfXihksbQscN2y3NjBu9rPaBZhe4s/MlIEWRugXcYK5QTt9OwnPuMmA3A cY1gDYrm7WT0DLlyQzXAr8u9tq7sdGEFJd7b/av5w6/Oy9dOi0C53eVMj0q/G4r1bMis qIjg== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yw8yNt/mOZ5JTIjfV9JK73A9FzfldKAmZoUlbny04vImw7TM6+w MfQJNZKK9bNXRsl4zecNjcc0yEmMWU0AEA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IF1lsBSX4ORbEo7oulzAMzinY84u+6aLiz8gdW/34Da/EEhpUv14ss5KHp+v4VvDZ1HlEUBGA== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6870:93c4:b0:1b7:2d92:58d6 with SMTP id c4-20020a05687093c400b001b72d9258d6mr753488oal.32.1694119170713; Thu, 07 Sep 2023 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [10.0.2.153] (c-174-51-218-141.hsd1.co.comcast.net. [174.51.218.141]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id do24-20020a0566384c9800b0042b326ed1ebsm46472jab.48.2023.09.07.13.39.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2023 13:39:30 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <37edb289-d49e-0d74-05f2-4cc93c6129aa@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2023 14:39:28 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.15.0 From: Katherine Cox-Buday Subject: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? To: Simon Tournier , Maxim Cournoyer , Saku Laesvuori Cc: Attila Lendvai , Liliana Marie Prikler , Andreas Enge , "Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU Systemtdistribution." Newsgroups: gmane.comp.gnu.guix.devel References: <20230827135726.y33t55w4cvq6zsvb@X-kone> <874jkift8v.fsf@gmail.com> <867cp4sj7k.fsf@gmail.com> <38242808-2f06-4674-3842-aea1a5378d05@gmail.com> <86v8cop6sy.fsf@gmail.com> <8634zrpt40.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Language: en-US In-Reply-To: <8634zrpt40.fsf@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2001:4860:4864:20::2e; envelope-from=cox.katherine.e@gmail.com; helo=mail-oa1-x2e.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -35 X-Spam_score: -3.6 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-1.473, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx0.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -7.09 X-Spam-Score: -7.09 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 9164856342 X-TUID: lckHmNqNLrwS On 9/6/23 3:07 AM, Simon Tournier wrote: > As you said, we are all different, thus it means that any collaboration > cannot be full-frictionless. Because any social interaction implies > norms and standards. Norms and standards are by their definition > excluding. > > For example, we communicate in English. It appears to me impossible to > send a contribution without having some basic knowledge of English. How > do I know that the English I wrote in the docstring, or in the comments > of code, or the name of the procedures, or in the commit message, etc. > how do I know that English is meeting the standard? There is an > expectation about the English we are using for communicating and that > expectation is complicated enough that it’s easy to get it wrong. What > is the thing that will tell me that the English I wrote is not meeting > the standard? > > Why do we accept this “friction” about English filtering people? This is an excellent analogy, and a very good parallel to the conversation about the Changelog format. It really made me stop and think! Thank you! I can think of a rebuttal, but I'm going to drop this line of conversation, as you suggest, since it's not really the point. > I hope that I am demonstrating to always choose kindness. > > Well, if we do not have a common understanding about something, then we > cannot communicate about this something, IMHO. Sharing a common > understanding about something is a core principle to establish > communication and collaboration. > > If group A says ’foo’ and group B does not understand ’foo’, this ’foo’ > is real for group A but is it real for group B? Group A and group B > needs to have a common understanding about ’foo’ in order to agree on > how to deal with ’foo’. > > My messages in this thread show, I hope, that I am taking seriously this > discussion. I am doing my best to be empathetic and I am considering > all the concerns. However, raising a concern does not make it real or > automatically equal with all the others. > > ( Do not take me wrong, I am not saying that for example commit > message format could not be a real friction for some people, I am sure > it is; as using in English is a real friction for some people. Instead, > I am saying that I fail to get why is it or what makes this commit > message format a real problem. ) Simon, for whatever it's worth, I think you're doing an amazing job. I think few people are able to simultaneously not understand something, but still engage in thoughtful and empathetic conversation. Really, well done. >> - Easy is relative: https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?t=497 > > Somehow, that’s the remark by Liliana [1], > > Maybe it's time to take a step back and instead of asking “How can we > decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?”, we should perhaps > ask “For which contributors do we want to/can we decrease the cognitive > overhead?” That's interesting, because I view this as the antithesis of what Rich was trying to convey. That quote is at the end of a dismissive ad hominem response which has grossly misinterpreted this discussion, even attributes it to malice, seems to draw the conclusion that contributing to Guix should be left to those for whom the current situation is fine, and even intimates that those who would like to improve the situation are incompetent. Here's the quote from Rich's talk: The fact that we throw these things around sort of casually saying, "Oh I like to use that technology because it's simple. And when I say simple I mean easy. *And when I'm saying easy, I mean, because I already know something that looks very much like that*" is how this whole thing degrades, and we can never have objective discussion about the qualities that matter to us in our software. Rich is saying that there are intrinsic properties to approaches that make them simple, but possibly not easy, and that we shouldn't rest our arguments on claiming something is "easy", because that term is relative, and often related to familiarity. Familiarity is a hard bias to overcome. I'm here to discuss those intrinsic properties, the contributor experience, and see where that leads us. Contextualized, this quote is insinuating that I'm trying many different arguments in an attempt to push an agenda, and that because of this, any of the points I've made are suspect and should be dismissed. Read charitably, this quote suggests that there is a singular, best, way to do things, and that if it doesn't work for some, the problem is not the process, but that "those people" are incompetent. This is classic gatekeeping. > which is another way, IMHO, to express what I have tried to say with > “range of contributions” in my first message [2]. > >> - Differentiating the types of complexity (importantly defining >> incidental complexity): https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?t=1173 > > It appears to me that it is also what I have tried to say in my very > first message [2]. :-) > > Well, from my point of view, we are using here the term “contribution” > as it was one homogeneous thing. Instead, I think the term refers to a > range with a gradual complexity. And the improvements or tools maybe > also need to be gradual depending on this range. This is crucial, so please forgive me if I belabor this point. You are correct that there are a range of ways to contribute, and some of them are intrinsically more difficult. But irrespective of that range of difficulty, *improving the accessibility and experience helps everyone*. This is a well studied phenomenon, but to highlight some of the common reasons: - Ability waxes and wanes throughout our lives. Most often it is a temporary state of affairs. Everyone's ability declines in the end, and the work you do today to mitigate this will help you tomorrow. - Solutions designed to help in a specific way often surprise us by helping in other ways. - There is a negative feedback loop of not designing for X, which keeps people affected by X away, which gives the illusion that there's no people affected by X who are interested, which means we don't design for X. Proactively addressing this breaks that cycle. In my original message I stated: I've written a script for myself that tries to perform all the steps including running the git command to submit the patch, and this has helped me, but that this is necessary for me to do might be something that, if addressed, could help others. Aside from the commit message, I've largely solved my problems. I'm trying to advocate for others, and not just pull the ladder up behind me. If Guix is for everyone, then we should do our best to ensure everyone can contribute with the things they're skilled at. > So yeah, I am definitely on that page. :-) I am sorry if you have not > felt that I am aligned since my very first message [2]. On the contrary, throughout this thread, I've thought that you understood the larger picture. I'm just responding to points where I thought I could contribute something, or where the points I've made have been challenged or questions have been asked.