> Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"? Sorry, I played Civilization. What I learned was that saying ‘No’ at right moment is much more important to have excellent score, then saying ‘Yes’ each time )
> For example, in the oauth2 discussion As for oAuth, I think @CouchDB has a lot of readers, and asking them does anyone use oauth, is more elegant way to decide should feature be dropped. ermouth 2015-09-14 17:38 GMT+03:00 Jason Smith <[email protected]>: > Have you ever played "Dungeons and Dragons"? > > I think the "yes-and" style is more about continuing the momentum of the > conversation, and also having fun! > > The "yes-and" style is independent of your opinion about the matter, or the > facts of its consequences. To me, it is about being Socratic: say "Sure!" > and then ask what the next steps are, or what the expected consequences > will be. > > For example, in the oauth2 discussion, I think Jan used a bit of "yes-and" > style, when he said "Yes, let's keep oauth2, provided a developer fixes its > bugs; otherwise not." And I think the community collectively answered: > "Yes, let's throw it out." > > On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 8:22 PM, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other > > > that we have the best of the project in mind > > > > If @kxepal says there is no activity in www@ – he is right. Facts are > > stubborn things. If he predicts there will be no users in design@ with > > current approach – he is right. > > > > I can‘t imagine @kxepal don‘t trust you, or Robert, or Michelle. Surely, > he > > trust. He just pointing out real problems, and this is absolutely > ortogonal > > to trust. > > > > Not everyone pointing out a problem can immidiately propose a solution. > > Issue fixing starts from bug itself, not from patch. And I can‘t imagine, > > how you can start bug report with ‘Yes, and...’. There is nothing > barbarian > > in ‘It won‘t work in this way’ or ‘But how about this?’. > > > > > That’s the kind of stuff that makes we very very tired participating > here > > > > Sorry, but just repeating your own words: ‘If that makes you want to > > unsubscribe, farewell’. Writing it not to prick you, but to point out, > that > > if you issue rules about friendliness, you better obey them by yourself > > first. > > > > > [Alexnder Shorin] What really hurts conversations is false-positive > > feedback, when you > > > have to lie people and lie to yourself about foreign ideas. > > > > Absolutely. +1000. > > > > ermouth > > > > 2015-09-14 15:49 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > > > On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:42, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > >> I’m suggesting a way how we can adopt a proven way > > > >> If that makes you want to unsubscribe, farewell. > > > > > > > > That is exactly what I called iron ordnung. Extreme unfriendliness is > > > only > > > > allowed for your here, Jan. The one thing I fear now is that people > are > > > > afraid to say ‘but’, or take a contrarian position in general. How > can > > we > > > > avoid that? > > > > > > I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we > have > > > the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem > disagreeing > > > with each other. > > > > > > If you come at this is discussion from “if this happens, I’ll leave the > > > project”, then you probably don’t trust me to make good suggestions > about > > > our culture. How can I improve that? > > > > > > > > > > Without phrases ‘You don‘t like it? Farewell’, surely. > > > > > > I’m sorry for the harsh tone, but I’m also really fed up with lazy > > excuses > > > of why we shouldn’t be a better community, and I especially called this > > out > > > in my original message, and now we already have a number of messages on > > > this thread that have nothing to do with the actual issue. That’s the > > kind > > > of stuff that makes we very very tired participating here. > > > > > > Best > > > Jan > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ermouth > > > > > > > > 2015-09-14 15:26 GMT+03:00 Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]>: > > > > > > > >> Of course, this could have gone this way: > > > >> > > > >> “That’s an interesting approach, is there more literature on how and > > why > > > >> this is supposed to work?” > > > >> “Here’s a bunch of links: …” > > > >> “Gotcha, the one thing I fear now is that people are afraid to say > > > ‘but’, > > > >> or take a contrarian position in general. How can we avoid that?” > > > >> “I think it comes back to trust, if we all trust each other, that we > > > have > > > >> the best of the project in mind, we shouldn’t have a problem > > disagreeing > > > >> with each other.” > > > >> > > > >> But then again, that would be a sign of the method working… > > > >> > > > >> Best > > > >> Jan > > > >> -- > > > >> > > > >> > > > >>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 14:15, ermouth <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>> 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 <[email protected]>: > > > >>> > > > >>>> > > > >>>>> On 14 Sep 2015, at 12:08, Alexander Shorin <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> Hi Jan > > > >>>>> > > > >>>>> On Mon, Sep 14, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Jan Lehnardt <[email protected]> > > > 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/ > > > >>>> > > > >>>> > > > >> > > > >> -- > > > >> Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > > > >> http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > > > >> > > > >> > > > > > > -- > > > Professional Support for Apache CouchDB: > > > http://www.neighbourhood.ie/couchdb-support/ > > > > > > > > >
