Messages in this thread | | | Date | Tue, 16 Jul 2013 19:31:20 -0400 | From | Ric Wheeler <> | Subject | Re: [Ksummit-2013-discuss] [ATTEND] How to act on LKML |
| |
On 07/16/2013 07:12 PM, Sarah Sharp wrote: > On Tue, Jul 16, 2013 at 06:54:59PM -0400, Steven Rostedt wrote: >> On Tue, 2013-07-16 at 15:43 -0700, Sarah Sharp wrote: >> >>> Yes, that's true. Some kernel developers are better at moderating their >>> comments and tone towards individuals who are "sensitive". Others >>> simply don't give a shit. So we need to figure out how to meet >>> somewhere in the middle, in order to establish a baseline of civility. >> I have to ask this because I'm thick, and don't really understand, >> but ... >> >> What problem exactly are we trying to solve here? > Personal attacks are not cool Steve. Some people simply don't care if a > verbal tirade is directed at them. Others do not want anyone to attack > them personally, but they're fine with people attacking their code. > > Bystanders that don't understand the kernel community structure are > discouraged from contributing because they don't want to be verbally > abused, and they really don't want to see either personal attacks or > intense belittling, demeaning comments about code. > > In order to make our community better, we need to figure out where the > baseline of "good" behavior is. We need to define what behavior we want > from both maintainers and patch submitters. E.g. "No regressions" and > "don't break userspace" and "no personal attacks". That needs to be > written down somewhere, and it isn't. If it's documented somewhere, > point me to the file in Documentation. Hint: it's not there. > > That is the problem. > > Sarah Sharp
The problem you are pointing out - and it is a problem - makes us less effective as a community.
Getting the balance right is clearly difficult in a large, diverse community, but I do think that the key is to focus criticism on the code or technical arguments and avoid attacks on the individual.
Being direct and funny in a critique is not the core of the issue,
Ric
| |