Re: Criticisms of my "tone" (was Re: A "cosmetic changes" commit that removes security fixes)

[Leo Prikler]

Hello Giovanni,

I am not Mark or Ludo, but as a /generic other/, I'd still like to
reply.

Am Samstag, den 01.05.2021, 19:02 +0200 schrieb Giovanni Biscuolo:
> Hello Mark and Ludovic,
> 
> please forgive me if I'm going forward with this thread but, after
> some
> hesitation, I decided to write this message because I /feel/ we could
> do
> better in dealing with issues like this one.
> 
> Please when you'll read "you" consider it a /generic you/ ("you the
> reader") not Mark, Ludovic or any specific person;  please also
> consider
> that "we" is a /plurali maiestatis/ :-D
Nitpick, should be /pluralis/ :P

> I also spent some time re-reading messages that Mark sent in this
> thread
> and, like him, I really don't understand what Mark did wrong.
> 
> For sure Mark /insisted/ that Raghav and Léo did something wrong with
> some commits, we can say Mark did it being /direct/ and /accusatory/
> but
> we cannot really say Mark assumed bad faith from them.
He did wrong insofar as his accusatory message read as though he was
assuming bad faith (or at the very least incompetence, which, if you
are the party being accused, does not sound too nice either).

> If you want you can consider Mark used an /harsh/ tone but this is a
> personal feeling, something one /could/ read "between the lines" even
> if
> actually in a written communication I find it hard to read between
> the
> lines, it is not something factual.  Maybe Mark intended to be harsh,
> maybe not: who knows?  Is /this/ (finding he was harsh) important?
It is definitely of some importance.  You want your readers to
interpret your message in the same way you interpret them and "sounding
pointlessly harsh" is (I would assume) not the way anyone wants to be
read.  Of course, there is a complex interplay between reader and
writer at hand here, but only one variable for the writer to control.

In this case, what was read between the lines caused one of the
participants to assume a very defensive stance, and might also have
been uncomfortable for others, who were involved.  While I personally
disagree with tone policing (the act of dismissing criticism based
solely on issues of tone), I think trying to phrase things in a way
you're less likely to be misunderstood is in general a good idea.

> As I said above, at most Mark communication should be considered
> /direct/ and /accusatory/, I say this considering statements like
> this:
> 
> «Léo Le Bouter [...] bears primary responsibility for these
> mistakes.»
> 
> «I would very much like to hear an explanation from Léo about how
> this
> happened.»
> 
> «Nonetheless, you (Raghav) also bear some responsibility»
> 
> «blatantly [1] misleading commit log [...] Most of the changes above
> are
> not mentioned in the commit log at all, and of course the summary
> line
> is extremely misleading.»
Each of those phrases on their own might not look too bad, but
stringing them together like this constructs an image in which Mark is
just looking for someone to blame.  Of course, with full context, it's
slightly less severe, but you can't ignore the possibility, that your
conversation partner might choose to get riled up by those alone.

> So: Mark gave responsibilities and complained "loudly" about
> misleading
> commits, giving precise explanations of the reasons for how bad he
> considered the situation, from his point of view (the point of view
> of a
> person with competence /and/ previous commints in the domain he was
> analyzing).  You can agree or disagree with him, but /now/ this is
> not
> the point.
> 
> You can call it /accusation/, I call it /asking for responsibility/.
> 
> You can call it /harsh/, I call it /direct/.
> 
> Is it really important to find a proper definition for words used by
> Mark?  Is it important to define if some word was proper or improper
> to
> in this context?
> 
> In my opinion we should refrain questioning language here (I mean in
> Guix mailing lists), especially questioning (perceived) "tone";
> /unless/
> containing accusations of bad faith or insults, we should be
> forgiving
> /each other/ on how people choose how to use [2] language.
> 
> If we question language usage we risk to shame people for improper
> use
> of language and this is bad in my opinion because we risk to isolate
> or
> alienate people who - for whatever reason they choose - use direct
> (or
> harsh, or accusatory) language to express controversial ideas or
> report
> issues, never intending to offend really no one: please respect
> people
> /also/ if you find they improperly use language.
You make a somewhat decent point against tone policing and since I
agree on the position, I don't want to take away from your argument. 
However, I think it'd be better not to consider this as an issue of
people "choosing to be harsh" (which could well be avoided), but in
terms of inclusivity (not everyone is a native English speaker and we
come from different cultural backgrounds; we shouldn't discourage people from 
contributing just because they aren't part of a queer squat in Paris).
> [...]
> 
> Thanks! Giovanni.

I think this explains how I see it somewhat well, but remember, that
there are as many opinions on this matter as there were participants in
the discussion.  We might not all reach a consensus here.

Leo