From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp2 ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms0.migadu.com with LMTPS id ODr6OCS1jWACAwEAgWs5BA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 22:08:04 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:8:6d80::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp2 with LMTPS id 0N6tNCS1jWC0BwAAB5/wlQ (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 01 May 2021 20:08:04 +0000 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 833F22208E for ; Sat, 1 May 2021 22:08:04 +0200 (CEST) Received: from localhost ([::1]:36370 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcvuF-0001G5-7H for larch@yhetil.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 16:08:03 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:58412) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcvu5-0001Fk-1r for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 01 May 2021 16:07:53 -0400 Received: from mailrelay.tugraz.at ([129.27.2.202]:25182) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lcvtx-0003qJ-Ik; Sat, 01 May 2021 16:07:51 -0400 Received: from nijino.local (91-114-247-246.adsl.highway.telekom.at [91.114.247.246]) by mailrelay.tugraz.at (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 4FXgJS29hLz1LLyW; Sat, 1 May 2021 22:07:36 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 mailrelay.tugraz.at 4FXgJS29hLz1LLyW DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=tugraz.at; s=mailrelay; t=1619899657; bh=lUnU6XJ3ScGT3UKtBHdpmXwEEyUay3AVY3y2yidIOKg=; h=Subject:From:To:Cc:Date:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=kvQp/ni/ZuQm6Ux+61sBCTpXzbuyfOlmH3G9YHNdkeVdFkzjWXb0IfyEHa2YFS06w STpGXwCAVtknAWZux6k0z6F4Ik3RjX70EFZruFSOkUPae2iGc0Vv2DhDc7F7/pVBM7 l7IvTv8BwP8szF7dVlClRCEUWIdzEt5MYQ6ruDcc= Message-ID: <1bbb100c34c660eaa697ae7ea9ea7ea3638c4c50.camel@student.tugraz.at> Subject: Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes) From: Leo Prikler To: Giovanni Biscuolo , Mark H Weaver , Ludovic =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?= Date: Sat, 01 May 2021 22:07:35 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> References: <87tunz11mf.fsf@netris.org> <87y2daz13x.fsf@netris.org> <87r1j2z079.fsf@netris.org> <87a6pqypf9.fsf@netris.org> <87wnsp7yo9.fsf@gnu.org> <87v986pdej.fsf@netris.org> <874kfm75fl.fsf@biscuolo.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" User-Agent: Evolution 3.34.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUG-Backscatter-control: bt4lQm5Tva3SBgCuw0EnZw X-Spam-Scanner: SpamAssassin 3.003001 X-Spam-Score-relay: -1.9 X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.74 on 129.27.10.117 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=129.27.2.202; envelope-from=leo.prikler@student.tugraz.at; helo=mailrelay.tugraz.at X-Spam_score_int: -42 X-Spam_score: -4.3 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.3 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, 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: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Guix Devel , GNU Guix maintainers Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1619899684; 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=lUnU6XJ3ScGT3UKtBHdpmXwEEyUay3AVY3y2yidIOKg=; b=j/SkceiyNPy/+7lOiylK3z3lJ5XWUzFfbgsSAheh13Nj4Bk/FHEBZPMxiuIOF1qCjS1T6t d0jeiKZWuppyXJS9LCKva+tXCQ+Uo5scYeOZZO44u4K5jYKPV/t560Kkw0763roDWAE7Ym tLPlNqHEq3A8Dln7XhSsciv2ANLnLc4SvennGbksTkL+37j5jpZez8aStrCkMRJQLm1Ikb oqf4QBKtAmsXKU4H2ED8gAytXd6qfKNIEmTxeaJbgXC+HUhH8lB7G1XP7QTSUoIWIJLb3s C8W6aI0oYlp9wGpz7MlN6hePPC0OfeQBNlCodOXD1qLvYJAGogG0FTBkBxKewQ== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1619899684; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=savf1qAbnf0MnlIWuzIEogpqqs112txOzDUFY7g7JrAiRb8qCSPUk1p74Mx6LbLhiRmG5P gHpUifmMj3Vr2ed8Jyq36d4INR0Kj3hZ3UH/1BUD1yPj519LlOau1v3QnL3tUE0Mzamy7+ MUXhA/FRl9pI+y8vRqN4S+qQCvQ+bcbRE3M1EwfJUVO0+yW9Q/2pVabVjVlx99vb3E4ajM UY5qlC3yvmZAyc3OK933tPbWSAF+YKEnEDO1h9iP+InXYU8l/zlXOSncSq5VS7can+4Vfb /hyw0rsVUggbkBlLGPPIHEmEUa23nBsJxHzVaxIUfM3tXvsSYsKtdZ3KVpCBAg== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b="kvQp/ni/"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -3.16 Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=tugraz.at header.s=mailrelay header.b="kvQp/ni/"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=student.tugraz.at; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=guix-devel-bounces@gnu.org X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 833F22208E X-Spam-Score: -3.16 X-Migadu-Scanner: scn0.migadu.com X-TUID: h8XvWGPE50py Hello Giovanni, I am not Mark or Ludo, but as a /generic other/, I'd still like to reply. Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo: > Hello Mark and Ludovic, > > please forgive me if I'm going forward with this thread but, after > some > hesitation, I decided to write this message because I /feel/ we could > do > better in dealing with issues like this one. > > Please when you'll read "you" consider it a /generic you/ ("you the > reader") not Mark, Ludovic or any specific person; please also > consider > that "we" is a /plurali maiestatis/ :-D Nitpick, should be /pluralis/ :P > I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this > thread > and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong. > > For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong with > some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/ > but > we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them. He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he was assuming bad faith (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you are the party being accused, does not sound too nice either). > If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a > personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even > if > actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between > the > lines, it is not something factual. Maybe Mark intended to be harsh, > maybe not: who knows? Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) important? It is definitely of some importance. You want your readers to interpret your message in the same way you interpret them and "sounding pointlessly harsh" is (I would assume) not the way anyone wants to be read. Of course, there is a complex interplay between reader and writer at hand here, but only one variable for the writer to control. In this case, what was read between the lines caused one of the participants to assume a very defensive stance, and might also have been uncomfortable for others, who were involved. While I personally disagree with tone policing (the act of dismissing criticism based solely on issues of tone), I think trying to phrase things in a way you're less likely to be misunderstood is in general a good idea. > As I said above, at most Mark communication should be considered > /direct/ and /accusatory/, I say this considering statements like > this: > > «Léo Le Bouter [...] bears primary responsibility for these > mistakes.» > > «I would very much like to hear an explanation from Léo about how > this > happened.» > > «Nonetheless, you (Raghav) also bear some responsibility» > > «blatantly [1] misleading commit log [...] Most of the changes above > are > not mentioned in the commit log at all, and of course the summary > line > is extremely misleading.» Each of those phrases on their own might not look too bad, but stringing them together like this constructs an image in which Mark is just looking for someone to blame. Of course, with full context, it's slightly less severe, but you can't ignore the possibility, that your conversation partner might choose to get riled up by those alone. > So: Mark gave responsibilities and complained "loudly" about > misleading > commits, giving precise explanations of the reasons for how bad he > considered the situation, from his point of view (the point of view > of a > person with competence /and/ previous commints in the domain he was > analyzing). You can agree or disagree with him, but /now/ this is > not > the point. > > You can call it /accusation/, I call it /asking for responsibility/. > > You can call it /harsh/, I call it /direct/. > > Is it really important to find a proper definition for words used by > Mark? Is it important to define if some word was proper or improper > to > in this context? > > In my opinion we should refrain questioning language here (I mean in > Guix mailing lists), especially questioning (perceived) "tone"; > /unless/ > containing accusations of bad faith or insults, we should be > forgiving > /each other/ on how people choose how to use [2] language. > > If we question language usage we risk to shame people for improper > use > of language and this is bad in my opinion because we risk to isolate > or > alienate people who - for whatever reason they choose - use direct > (or > harsh, or accusatory) language to express controversial ideas or > report > issues, never intending to offend really no one: please respect > people > /also/ if you find they improperly use language. You make a somewhat decent point against tone policing and since I agree on the position, I don't want to take away from your argument. However, I think it'd be better not to consider this as an issue of people "choosing to be harsh" (which could well be avoided), but in terms of inclusivity (not everyone is a native English speaker and we come from different cultural backgrounds; we shouldn't discourage people from contributing just because they aren't part of a queer squat in Paris). > [...] > > Thanks! Giovanni. I think this explains how I see it somewhat well, but remember, that there are as many opinions on this matter as there were participants in the discussion. We might not all reach a consensus here. Leo