A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 7, 2018 23:02 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359)
Parent article: A "joke" in the glibc manual

The Gnu Kind Communication Guidelines are presented as a guide to communicators, describing how to communicated most effectively.
They are *not* presented as a guide to an enforcement agency explaining how other people should be communicating.

There is a profound difference between "I will communicate better" and "You will communicate better". The guidelines appear focused on helping people who wish to adopt the first attitude (an attitude that it encourages), not on helping people who wish to adopt the second. You could argue that Richard's announcement contains language which condemns the second approach - though it isn't a precise parallel.

Given this, it seem inappropriate to me for the GKCG to be used to promote this patch. It may well be an excellent and long overdue patch, but the end doesn't justify the means.

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 8, 2018 11:40 UTC (Thu) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link] (5 responses)

Why should someone who is a part of the GNU project not use the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines for deciding how the project communicates? In other words: who do you think are the "I" and "You" in this instance?

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 1:11 UTC (Fri) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (4 responses)

> Why should someone who is a part of the GNU project not use the GNU Kind Communication Guidelines for deciding how the project communicates?

Because a project doesn't communicate - individuals communicate on behalf of a project. Possibly several individuals will team together to create a communication on behalf of the project.
In such cases, it would be entirely consistent with the apparent purpose of the Guidelines for those individuals to use the guidelines in determining how they, personally, will communicate.

I don't think it is consistent with the stated purpose of those guidelines to use them to judge how other people are communicating. Were you to wish to guide people how they might judge others, you would create a very different document. Such a document may well be related the "broader issues" that RMS is apparently considering - it is certainly a "different" issue, though it is related.

> In other words: who do you think are the "I" and "You" in this instance?

"I" is always the individual who is creating the text or speech. It is also a person who approves a text or speech (as they are effectively repeating the text/speech and making it their own responsibility too).
So if I write a patch to the documentation, I would consider it appropriate to follow the guidelines.
If I were asked to review a patch, and found that the communication style of the patch (or the result of the patch) did not fit my understanding of the guidelines, I would think carefully about whether I should approve it.
I wouldn't say "you cannot say that, it contravenes the guidelines".
I might say "I don't want to approve this because I feel it speaks in a way that is discouraged by the guidelines".

Thanks for asking.

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 1:54 UTC (Fri) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

So "I would like to change this document in order to ensure that the communication it embodies is kinder" is fine?

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 5:13 UTC (Fri) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

I think that is much better, yes.
It takes ownership of the opinion, and declares an intention and desire to follow a particular path that is known to be welcome, without suggesting that anyone else is required to make the same choice.
If someone has a different position, that need not be seen, in itself, as contradicting the guidelines.
The guidelines guide your conduct, but do not resolve your disagreements - you still need to do that yourself.

BTW, while rereading the guidelines I noticed "If other participants complain about the way you express your ideas, please make an effort to cater to them." and wanted to thank you for making the effort. I think that is really valuable, and it is appreciated.

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 15, 2018 18:21 UTC (Thu) by Wol (subscriber, #4433) [Link]

> It takes ownership of the opinion, and declares an intention and desire to follow a particular path that is known to be welcome, without suggesting that anyone else is required to make the same choice.

Which is why the linux raid wiki editing guidelines state pretty much "please write in the *first* person and take *personal* responsibility for what you write".

Imho there's far too much emphasis on third-person impersonal writing that takes responsibility for nothing. (Plus 1st-person is much nicer to read :-)

Cheers,
Wol

A "joke" in the glibc manual

Posted Nov 9, 2018 6:57 UTC (Fri) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

Thanks for clarifying! It's a very subtle issue and I think I now understand what you mean.