On 1/14/16, 7:47 AM, "stig.bak...@gmail.com on behalf of Stig Bakken" <stig.bak...@gmail.com on behalf of s...@stigbakken.com> wrote:
>I agree whole-heartedly with Zeev here! > >Anyone who has a clue about organizational psychology will tell you to >focus on what you want more of, not on what you want to eliminate. Heck, >anyone who is a parent today should understand this intuitively. > >The main focus of a CoC should be positive, describing or even giving >examples of respectful behavior, that way people are guided towards >"wanted" behavior, instead of having to figure it out by process of >elimination from a list of what NOT to do. Granted, there is such a thing >as common sense, but it's not always that common, so providing positive >guidance is effective. > >Several people have suggested splitting the RFC into two: one for the CoC >itself (which should be easier to rally around), and another for how >to deal with problems. I think this is a very rational approach, it allows >us to learn from experience with the CoC as formulated before setting up >any kind of tribunal or banning system which could backfire badly in >various ways. > I agree with Stig and it mirrors what’s happening in psychology - less carrot and stick and more focused on positive reinforcement and expectations. I also question whether the RFC process is supposed to even address such issues. The RFC process exists to vote on product related issues (features, EOL, BC breakage, …). It feels weird to me to use it for such an initiative. But going with Stig’s suggestion, I think it’d be nice to work on a consensus-based (not RFC-based) guideline of the kind of positive behaviors we expect from people on internals@. Andi
