On Tue, 12 Jan 2016 22:10:43 -0500 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Kevin Grittner <kgri...@gmail.com> writes: > > I'm not the greatest word-smith, but I'll attempt to rework Josh's > > draft to something that seems more "natural" to me. > > Minor (or not?) comment: > > > * To maintain a safe, respectful, productive and collaborative > > environment all participants must ensure that their language and > > actions are free of personal attacks and disparaging remarks of any > > kind. > > The "disparaging remarks" part of this could easily be taken to forbid > technical criticism of any sort, eg "this patch is bad because X,Y, and > Z", even when X,Y, and Z are perfectly neutral technical points. "Of any > kind" doesn't improve that either. I'm on board with the "personal > attacks" part. Maybe "disparaging personal remarks" would be better? When I used to write fiction, I met regularly with a writing group. We had a very explicit rule: criticize the manuscript, NOT the author. I feel this applies ... and possibly could be worded to that effect, "Critical remarks regarding patches and/or technical work are necessary to ensure a quality product; however, critical remarks directed at individuals are not constructive and therefore not acceptable." or something ... -- Bill Moran -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
