[rb-general] be excellent to each other (Re: Heading toward functional compilation by adding hidden inputs?)

[Daniel Shahaf]

Ximin Luo wrote on Wed, Jan 25, 2017 at 13:40:00 +0000:
> The general topic is indeed a relevant discussion for this list. And
> I was not offended by your specific message, rather the general
> pattern of messages from various people.
> 
> That is - taking their vague understanding or support of a general
> concept, and using it an argument against something else, in a way
> that is very unconcrete and seems more suited towards pleasing an
> audience rather than seriously discussing the topic.
> 

I hope that nobody was being intentionally unconcrete or acting of
populistic motives.  I have certainly observed nothing of the sort.

Moreover, "People have been unconcrete and populistic" is not the
take-away I wish anyone would have of this thread: that's just emotional
residue that would cause the next misunderstanding to flare yet higher.

I wish the take-away were "There had been a misunderstanding, but
everyone's contributions were intended to be constructive/on-topic".
Moreover, I hope that the next time somebody appears to be disrespectful,
that impression will be resolved without raising the channel temperature.
That's a skill we all need to learn...

Cheers,

Daniel

> This form of argumentation indicates a distinct *lack* of respect for
> others. They may not be using snarky comments as much as I was, but
> the lack of respect is as serious. if not more serious. If we are
> talking about being respectful, I would suggest that we avoid and
> discourage this form of argumentation. (And I apologise that the
> method in which I was trying to discourage this, may not have been so
> nice.)
> 
> For example, I am more than happy to write polite responses to
> arguments even if they heavily criticise me, if the writer has
> obviously also spent a respectful amount of time forming a detailed
> and specific argument.
> 
> > There’s a diversity of technical backgrounds in the RB community.  I
> > think it’s a strength, and I find it interesting to see how each of the
> > projects approaches RB with its own tools and constraints.  Each project
> > is making its own tradeoffs and choices, but in the end, we have common
> > goals and the discussion of how we get there is valuable in its own
> > right IMO.
> > 
> > Regardless, I second Holger.  Disagreements exist, but they should not
> > justify rude and unwelcoming behavior.  We want more people to invest in
> > RB and more diversity too, and that can only be achieved by showing
> > respect for each other’s opinions, work, and personality.
> > 
> 
> For sure these are good principles, let's see if everyone can follow them in the future.
> 
> X
> 
> -- 
> GPG: ed25519/56034877E1F87C35
> GPG: rsa4096/1318EFAC5FBBDBCE
> https://github.com/infinity0/pubkeys.git
> _______________________________________________
> rb-general at lists.reproducible-builds.org mailing list
> 
> To change your subscription options, visit https://lists.reproducible-builds.org/listinfo/rb-general.
> 
> To unsubscribe, send an email to rb-general-unsubscribe at lists.reproducible-builds.org.