This is excellent. I hope you don't mind if I fork this! Are you the original source or is there another place that deserves credit as well?
This email encrypted by tiny buttons & fat thumbs, beta voice recognition, and autocorrect on my iPhone. > On Apr 8, 2016, at 6:50 PM, Niclas Hedhman <nic...@hedhman.org> wrote: > > Everyone, > recently there was some tension/friction in a community, and I posted the > following advice to everyone to better get along. Not only did the > community members responded positively, but I also got pinged privately to > make this available publicly, so here it is, and I will let the wider > community do with it what it sees fit... > > > First a few general guidelines; > a. Assume that the other party agrees more than disagrees with you. We > tend to leave out agreements and focus on differences. Sometime this is > forgotten and escalation becomes absurd for no rational reason. > > b. When in doubt, assume that you are interpreting the message wrongly > and kindly ask for verification that you understood a particular topic well. > > c. When writing, assume that every sentence will be misinterpreted. > Review and try to reformulate to be as clear as possible. > > d. Use a submissive tone in all writing. Instead of the strong "In my > opinion, we must..." or the quite neutral "I think we should...", try to > use "Maybe we should consider..." or "Another idea that we could..." > > e. If you disagree strongly with an email sent, tag it Important, then > put it aside. Read it half a day later again. Put it aside. Read it again > next day, and then it is easier to write a balanced and inviting response, > instead of the initial vitriol that flows through us when we get upset. I > found that sometimes a response wouldn't be necessary, as the importance > was actually much lower than originally perceived, and I would be able to > work "with", instead of "against", a given change. > > f. Be forgiving and accept different priorities. The other person is not > out to get you or attack your work. More often than not, it is one of the > above (a-d) that are failing, or that the other person prioritize some > aspect higher than you do. Sometimes, this requires compromises, sometimes > not and the different priorities can co-exist. > > > Most communities at Apache consists of level-headed, reasonable people, who > have a strong vested interest in its Apache project. This interest, often > passion, is both the source of tension, but it is also what unites the > people within the community. It is easy to forget the vast amount of > agreement that exists, and get upset over relatively small disagreements. > Ability to put that aside, or downplay the importance, will ensure a > harmonious project. > > Face-to-Face is excellent way to eliminate disagreements, but that is often > not practical. Consider Skype or Google Hangout, just for the social aspect > of being part of this community. It should not be formal, and the > invitation should go out to everyone, perhaps someone want to make a short > presentation of what he/she is doing, to have some "structure", but that > might not be needed either. Once we have a face to the words, and a general > idea how that person is socially, we are much more capable to interact by > email. > > > Cheers > -- > Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer > http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
