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

Mark H Weaver <mhw@netris.org> writes:

> Ludovic Courtès <ludo@gnu.org> writes:

[...]

>> That you called attention on these issues is a great service to all of
>> us, Mark.  But I have to agree with Ricardo: the harsh accusatory tone
>> towards Raghav and Léo was not warranted; please assume good faith.
>
> I'm sorry if this comes off as obtuse, but having now re-read all of my
> messages in this thread, I honestly do not see what I did wrong here.
> I will need some help to understand.

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.

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?

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.»

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.

[...]

> It would be very helpful if you could point out specific messages or
> quotes of mine to illustrate your criticisms, and to clearly explain
> what's wrong with them.  I'm not trying to be obstructionist here.  I
> honestly don't understand, and I cannot improve without understanding.

Also, if I overlooked, misinterpreted or missed something please tell me
so I can also improve.

Thanks! Giovanni.



[1] in a way that is very obvious and intentional, when this is a bad
thing (from Cambridge Dictionary).

[2] or misuse, in case of not native (or not so good) english speakers

-- 
Giovanni Biscuolo

Xelera IT Infrastructures