Well, next good step is to write it in CoC. Something like “Starting post with ‘But’ is unwelcomed here’. You surely attract tons of contributors with this.
As for me the only desire after reading this is not to subscribe, but to unsubscribe. Imposed iron ordnung is surely far more uncomfortable, then posts, starting with ‘but‘. Also I see this policy just leave important questions undiscussed – nobody dare to say ‘but’. ermouth 2015-09-14 13:52 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org>: > > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <kxe...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hi Jan > > > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <j...@apache.org> wrote: > >> We agreed on a “Yes and…”-style of feedback, and it looks like that we > >> are defaulting to a “But…”-style feedback. > > > > Could you explain what are "Yes and..." and "But..." feedback styles > > and how they are different? > > Sure, I had hoped that just mentioning this recalls our previous > discussions. Here’s an example (sorry Michelle for picking on your example > here, but it was freshest in my mind. In general, I don’t mean to re-play > this as it happened on dev@, and I don’t want to single out anyone in > particular, so I changed things a little): > > > “But…”-style: > > “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.” > > “That’s a bad idea, we already have www@ and nobody uses that.” > > “…” > > <after a few of these, the person with the original suggestion leaves the > project> > > > > “Yes, and…”-style: > > “Hey, let’s create a design@ mailing list for designers.” > > “That’s an interesting idea: safe spaces are important! We still have the > somewhat dormant (which is a different discussion) www@ mailing list for > website stuff, have you considered repurposing this?” > > “Ah, good call, maybe that works, but I feel www@ isn’t as inviting a > name as design@ is.” > > “I can understand that. If we go down that path, what would be even more > inviting than a design@ mailing list? I can imagine that our mailing list > system is not very approachable for designers to begin with, maybe we > should look at a Discourse instance or a Slack channel?“ > > <fruitful conversation continues> > > * * * > > If your read this and thing “golly, ‘But…’-style is a lot more efficient, > we don’t have a lot of people contributing in the first place, so cutting > these discussions short is brilliant”, just know that our #1 purpose as a > project must be to attract more contributors. Having more contributors is > the #1 thing that makes sure CouchDB is a long-term success. It makes sure > that individuals don’t burn out, it helps with more diverse ideas making > the project better, it helps get us more stuff done overall. Long-term, it > doesn’t matter if 2.0 is delayed by a couple of more weeks, but it does > matter if the people who help shipping 2.0 leave the project right after, > because it was such a burden to do that they lost interest or simply burned > out. > > * * * > > Best > Jan > -- > > > > > > > -- > > ,,,^..^,,, > > -- > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > >
