Constructive feedback about incorrect use of language is rarely best done on a
public forum; this is commonly interpreted as rude, and a form of public
shaming. A mild one, admittedly, but one nonetheless. Since Greg has not
contributed meaningfully to any discussions that I recall, his personal
interpretation of the sentence is fairly irrelevant, and he furthermore
mentions it's an intervention based on his own internal pet peeve. So the
justification for any perceived rudeness is weak. I think it is no less
justified to suggest that such an intervention - even if well intentioned -
still appears rude and unjustified, and should be reconsidered in future, just
as Greg suggested the community reconsider its use of language.
To your point about ambiguity: reading a sentence twice to understand its
meaning is not the end of the world, and does not imply it is ambiguous, only
that it was not perfectly crafted.
On 16/04/2020, 14:24, "Christopher" <ctubb...@apache.org> wrote:
Benedict,
Please consider the possibility that Greg was offering constructive
criticism. He used polite wording, such as "Please", and clearly
explained why the misuse of the term could be confusing (specifically,
he explained that it could lead one to misunderstand how many
different PMCs were consulted).
I did not read his post to be a "snipe" against non-native English
speakers, and in fact, disagree with you that the usage was
unambiguous. On initial reading, I was thrown off by the incorrect
usage and had to read a second time to understand. I am a native
English speaker.
From my perspective, Greg offered constructive feedback on the correct
usage, and why it mattered. Please accept it as such and do not assume
negative intent.
On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 9:18 AM Benedict Elliott Smith
<bened...@apache.org> wrote:
>
> This is a silly pet peeve. In this context it was unambiguous what was
meant, and to snipe at people who do not have English as their first language
in such an irrelevant context is a waste of everyone's time and energy.
>
> Please update your approach to the community.
>
>
> On 16/04/2020, 10:35, "Greg Stein" <gst...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Off-topic, but this is a serious pet peeve of mine. Gotta respond. See
> below:
>
> On Thu, Apr 16, 2020 at 3:44 AM Oleksandr Petrov
<oleksandr.pet...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >...
>
> > Before posting here, these options were discussed on Apache
Cassandra
> > mailing list, and many PMCs, committers, and contributors were in
favour of
> > simplifying this process, as long as we comply to Apache rules.
> >
>
> "PMC" stands for Project Management Committee. I have seen this usage
> before, where you intend it to mean "PMC **Member**" ... your usage is
> incorrect.
>
> You did not consult "many PMCs". Just the single Cassandra PMC, and
its
> *Members*.
>
> Please update the terminology used by the community.
> -g
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: legal-discuss-unsubscr...@apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: legal-discuss-h...@apache.org
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@cassandra.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@cassandra.apache.org
