On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 19:37:23 -0700 Matt Turner <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 5:03 PM, Ian Delaney <idel...@gentoo.org> > wrote: >> On Sun, 11 Oct 2015 09:56:28 -0700 Matt Turner >> <matts...@gentoo.org> wrote: >> >>> On Sun, Oct 11, 2015 at 1:17 AM, wraeth <wra...@wraeth.id.au> >>> wrote: >> >>>> >>>> I feel that it is inappropriate for criticisms of >>>> contributor's work to be broadcast on a mailing list that is >>>> read not only by the developer community, but by users as >>>> well, without their consent. This is not a case where I am >>>> particularly embarrassed or upset - if others can learn from >>>> my mistakes, then they are mistakes I am happy to make >>>> (preferably only once). But doing so publicly, with >>>> identifying information, is inappropriate. >>> >>> Good grief. Seriously? >>> >>> Mailing list review is the *norm* in the free software world. >>> >> >> Oh, the norm > > You're being quite rude with attempted mockery -- actually, the > rest of your reply is pretty abrupt as well. > > If you want to fight, find someone and some place and else. > Otherwise if you're interested in having a reasonable discussion, > please read on. > >>> I haven't seen anything noted that should have caused >>> embarrassment. >>> >> >> Nor I. >>> This whole thing, as far as I can see, is about improving the >>> quality of Gentoo. I have learned from the reviewers reviewing >>> my commits and the commits of others. >> >> The you haven't been embarrassed or demeaned or nitpicked. So >> far. Good. >>> It's extremely valuable to do this in public and the idea that >>> noting an error on a public mailing list is somehow bad is >>> simply misguided. >>> >> >> You throw your opinion on that of a user offering his personal >> reaction. What do you want here? Users to comply to your >> perspective and fit in? Users to tough out the exposure to full >> public view even if they don't like it? > > I want to set expectations and explain that noting a mistake is > not anything to be self-conscious or embarrassed about. > >> Once and for all this is a review put onto recipients whether >> they wanted it or not without their request or consent. A key >> aspect of learning is that the informative experience be made a >> positive one. This user is not alone. These self appointed >> educators have background in technical prowess and that's all. >> Quite simply, dishing out lessons that make users cringe and >> recoil is counter productive. This exercise > > Why and where was a review "dished out" that made someone cringe > or recoil? I suspect this is just a strawman. > >> is about educating, so these educators had better get their >> heads around some the fundamental requirement to command respect >> from their target audience. To date they have managed to deliver >> their product as they see fit. Now they get the feedback that >> follows from delivering their lessons. >> >> These educators have already started to learn some lessons of >> their own. An intrinsic aspect of the flow of teaching / >> educating is the impact of teacher behaviour upon their learners >> and a teacher's responsibility as an educator to deal with it >> productively. What's happening here? Teacher says take it because >> I gave it to you,now be quiet ? > > No. It's a discussion. Review can be responded to -- reviewers > aren't intrinsically right. > >> This is not a captive audience. It's an immediately convenient >> one. Educators snubbed by their students are not educators. At >> least not effective ones. These students are so by nature of >> their own voluntary participation. They have the option of >> rejecting these lessons at their whim. > > Patch review is widely accepted as a quality-improving tool. Some > have had difficulty adjusting to it when coming from, for instance, > the closed-source world, primarily because they equate making a > mistake to personal failure (and as such, having it pointed out in > public makes it worse). > > http://sarah.thesharps.us/2014/09/01/the-gentle-art-of-patch-review/ > > > > offers a good explanation. > > "The most productive contributors see each mistake they make as a > growth opportunity, instead of a personal failure." > I'm not sure if this is what Ian is referring to, but between the sheer quantity (flooding) and the way I perceived some of the messages to be formulated, it all seemed rather abrasive in nature. Of course this was my own viewpoint on how things appeared, and I can't say whether that is what Ian or others perceived as well. Obviously, the goal of the project, which is an admirable one, is to provide reviews of commits and improve the quality of submissions both current and future. It's my opinion that the means under which it has proceeded thus far undermine the end goal. I'd love to see commentary on commits, but I am not sure that I think that the gentoo-dev list is appropriate. I'd much rather see it happen on the gentoo-commits list. Additionally, as mentioned by many others in this thread on all sides of the issue, the goal is to provide feedback and improve both users(whether they be end users or developers) and their submissions. I'd just like to state that those providing feedback should be mindful that how they provide that feedback is sometimes as important as the feedback itself. I think care should be taken to be as friendly and approachable as possible. Though some might disagree, I agree with the saying "you can catch more flies with honey than vinegar." Just my two cents of course. Hopefully it'll help guide this new project toward a great future. --NP-Hardass
