[erlang-questions] Announcing Erlang.org Code of Conduct

Joakim G. <>
Tue Mar 24 15:05:36 CET 2015


Perhaps we could quote common moral values from holy books and put them in the CoC.

For example, Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31.

But wait, just a list of different and reused holy quotations could consitute the whole CoC.

Reuse is common in software I have heard.Den 24 mar 2015 13:08 skrev Tuncer Ayaz <>:
>
> On Tue, Mar 24, 2015 at 5:52 AM, Joe Armstrong wrote: 
> > I view discussion CoC to be a light diversion from discussing 
> > programming problems. A form of relaxation. 
> > 
> > Hearing my learned colleagues point of view on such matters is 
> > enlightening. 
> > 
> > If I had one rule it wouldn't be "be nice" it would be "try not to 
> > be boring" - but niceness and boringness are in the eye of the 
> > beholder ... 
>
> I hope we can refine things like that in the CoC to be more precise 
> and less ambiguous. Writing the draft, we tried our best, but certain 
> words may carry a different meaning given changing audiences. Also, a 
> words's meanings will change over time, but that's what a timestamp is 
> for. For example, we thought we made it clear that cursing/swearing is 
> only acceptable if it's in a non-hateful manner directed at 
> non-personal things, say, a piece of code. The idea was that one 
> shouldn't go full emotional and curse at each other, while still 
> allowing you to vent your frustration regarding a piece of code (or 
> tech), if you *really have to*. 
>
> However, text communication loses most of the nuances present in face 
> to face conversations. That's why staying focused and avoiding 
> formulations that are likely to be mis-interpreted given everyone's 
> different backgrounds is a good idea, in terms of having a productive 
> conversation. Writing "that function is ****" certainly conveys the 
> point for most people, but you're highly likely to offend the author 
> or somebody else, and in that process steer the conversation from 
> technical facts to something based in emotions. That said, it's 
> imortant to clearly state opinions, but there are many ways to do that 
> which do not involve cursing/swearing. 
>
> Actually, a statement like "this is ****" has to be followed by an 
> explanation anyway, so formulating it as follows is more productive: 
>
> "This looks wrong to me. Are you sure that....?" 
>
> If explaining to someone that their code is completely wrong requires 
> callig it names, as they would otherwise not understand the severity, 
> there is a deeper communication problem, although it may sometimes be 
> the only way. However, if somebody doesn't understand "it's completely 
> wrong", I doubt they will have an easier time grasping "this is ****". 
>
> Joe, returning to "be nice", I wasn't aware of the meaning this might 
> have to somebody having grown up in a British household. In order to 
> avoid that, maybe we should have used the long form "treat others as 
> you desire to be treated" (or the "do not ..." version of it). I'm sorry 
> about that, but it can be fixed. 
>
> Just like writing code, it's almost always the best option to allocate 
> more time to thinking about some statement you're about to make than 
> trying out variations until one passes the crash test. In any 
> situation, trial and error is seldom the right first action to take. 
> _______________________________________________ 
> erlang-questions mailing list 
>  
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions 


More information about the erlang-questions mailing list