Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod From: Scott Kitterman Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.python Subject: Re: Suggesting change in DPT policy Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 12:50:03 +0100 Message-ID: References: X-Mailbox-Line: From debian-python-request@lists.debian.org Wed Feb 28 11:44:59 2024 Old-Return-Path: X-Amavis-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.51 tagged_above=-10000 required=5.3 tests=[BAYES_00=-2, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, LDO_WHITELIST=-5, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Policyd-Weight: using cached result; rate: -5.5 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Mailing-List: archive/latest/21498 List-ID: List-URL: List-Archive: https://lists.debian.org/msgid-search/C2EF5A97-5D0B-4E78-A6BB-997D4C0E69B4@kitterman.com Approved: robomod@news.nic.it Lines: 39 Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway Sender: robomod@news.nic.it X-Original-Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2024 11:44:07 +0000 X-Original-Message-ID: X-Original-References: <80455cbe-cc13-4240-8517-f9ba0512c32e@debian.org> <93E5EE46-6619-4584-B28E-1D4B6A3AB389@kitterman.com> <13029673-f563-4667-9f2a-c5e9e5fb1afe@debian.org> <05C0AB9D-651C-43A0-83CA-01CD31013A94@kitterman.com> Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.python:15516 On February 28, 2024 7:08:14 AM UTC, Andreas Tille wr= ote: >Hi Scott, > >Am Tue, Feb 27, 2024 at 11:54:01PM +0000 schrieb Scott Kitterman: >> It's self-induced=2E I mean if it's demotivating to have people point = out that you didn't follow the policy, then you can solve that all by yours= elf by following the policy=2E If I take your argument to its logical conc= lusion, all of Debian's rules can be demotivating when people ignore them, = so we should get rid of them all so your feelings are safe=2E > >I agree that it was my mistake to not follow team policy=2E I should not >have done this and I apologized for this=2E I should have written this >e-mail first to change a policy that does not fit my experiences in >other teams as well as what obviously several contributors consider >inappropriate=2E To solve this I started this discussion and meanwhile >created a MR[1]=2E > >The demotivating part was the wording to point me to the policy=2E I >addressed this with the words "I wonder whether I should propose another >change to the policy about maintaining a kind and polite language inside >the team - but that's a different thing=2E" in my initial mail[2]=2E > >To make sure this will really clear I added the proposed change in a >second MR[3] containing the following diff: This makes more sense to me=2E It is completely understandable that how t= hings are communicated affects how people feel about them=2E This is a dif= ficult thing to get right=2E I have experienced similar demotivating conve= rsations in Debian myself=2E Everyone in Debian is already bound by the code of conduct already, so it = seems redundant to add it here again=2E While I agree with the principle y= ou are trying to address, I think this change unnecessarily clutters the DP= T document and we should not make it=2E Scott K