On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgrittn@gmail.com> writes:
> > I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's
> > draft to something that seems more "natural" to me.
>
> Minor (or not?) comment:
>
> > * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative
> > environment all participants must ensure that their language and
> > actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any
> > kind.
>
> The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid
> technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and
> Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. "Of any
> kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the "personal
> attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better?
When I used to write fiction, I met regularly with a writing group.
We had a very explicit rule: criticize the manuscript, NOT the author.
I feel this applies ... and possibly could be worded to that effect,
"Critical remarks regarding patches and/or technical work are
necessary to ensure a quality product; however, critical remarks
directed at individuals are not constructive and therefore not
acceptable." or something ...
--
Bill Moran
