| |||||||||||||
Mailing list etiquetteMailing list etiquettePosted Sep 13, 2012 20:40 UTC (Thu) by geofft (subscriber, #59789)In reply to: Mailing list etiquette by juliank Parent article: Mailing list etiquette
I assume there is more context than what is quoted, but even so, I'd prefer overreaction to rudeness than underreaction. There's a lot you wouldn't get away with face-to-face that we've allowed people to get away with online.
(Log in to post comments)
Mailing list etiquette Posted Sep 13, 2012 21:17 UTC (Thu) by raven667 (subscriber, #5198) [Link]
The lack of context, body language and tone of voice, in email causes a lot of communication to be much more inflammatory than what was intended by the sender. The same words can take on different meanings depending on the intonation and emphasis.
Mailing list etiquette Posted Sep 13, 2012 21:24 UTC (Thu) by geofft (subscriber, #59789) [Link]
I agree, but this is why I try to be more conservative in the words I use, so that they're less likely to be misinterpreted in that way.
Mailing list etiquette Posted Sep 14, 2012 11:42 UTC (Fri) by ferringb (subscriber, #20752) [Link]
post in question: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.mercu... from thread in question http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.version-control.mercur... .
Think a better take away there is just because someone is picking at your code digging out design flaws/bugs/whatever (you know, the point of review), doesn't make them an arse or rude.
Getting reviewed can suck, and reviewing can suck somewhat since bad patches you really don't want to keep kicking the crap out of (but you have to since that's the point of review); nor can you save yourself the time and state "this isn't worth the gain/cost ratio" without coming off as an ass, even if it may be true...
Other chunks of the thread where the dude got pissed at being called an arse, meh, initiating point of discussion... not so much.
|
|||||||||||||