Feel free to do whatever you want... The only other "source" is general advice given on mailing lists at ASF and elsewhere, that I "consumed" into my consciousness, tried and filtered. No verbatim source exist.
Cheers Niclas On Sat, Apr 9, 2016 at 11:17 AM, Greg Chase <gch...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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 > -- Niclas Hedhman, Software Developer http://zest.apache.org - New Energy for Java
