Re: Tolerance

[Dave Cridland <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2019 at 23:05, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> wrote:

> On 7/15/2019 4:51 PM, Dave Cridland wrote:
> > In my opinion, the problem we saw that sparked much of this discussion
> > was twofold:
> >
> > a) By describing the actions as stupid, this carried a (unwanted)
> > implication that those carrying out the action were stupid. Only
> > stupid people do stupid things, but even clever people can make
> > serious errors.
> >
> > b) Rather than call out that choice of words but answer the essential
> > points, the organisation chose instead to chastise the sender publicly
> > and leave the points unanswered - unwittingly shutting down the
> > discussion.
> >
> > Put another way, the sender's choice of words added nothing useful to
> > the discussion, and in fact dissuaded some from offering their own
> > opinions. The response to it had much the same effect. And of course,
> > the response to that escalated further.. And so on.
>
>
> I really hate to restart this, but what I said was that the "result" was
> "a stupidity".  Language is important.   The proximate actions that
> finally caused the result are mostly still unexplained.  As I explained
> in the second email in the chain, there's enough blame to go around to
> all of us and I happily take the label of "stupid" for not paying more
> attention and not pushing back earlier especially after the RFC++ bof.
>
> In any event, what word or words would you use to describe the avoidable
> result of losing before time our world-class RSE?  My guess is that any
> characterization that you make that's at least half correct and doesn't
> preclude human causes or contributions for the result can be molded,
> twisted or otherwise imputed as being an insult to someone.   And lest
> you misunderstand - that's a rhetorical comment, not an actual demand
> for set of words.
>
>
Sorry. I thought a real-world example that was fresh in our minds might
actually be useful, but I was more parenthetical than I should have been
with noting that the term's effects were unwanted. Over the years, I've
seen far worse messages - more aggressive, more ad-hominem, and so on. Some
of them I wrote myself. But language is, as you say, important, and while I
don't doubt you had no intention for it to be taken this way, it clearly
has been by some, and that has had the effect of harming the debate that
you were trying to contribute to. As an example, it's just a drop in the
ocean - but that's part of the problem in itself.

For what it's worth, I'd have used "serious error", or "avoidable mistake",
or some such. But, that is with the benefit of many, many messages of
hindsight. Dealing with actual actions of actual people - as opposed to
purely technical discussions - is much much harder to do.


> Thanks by the way for noticing (b).
>
> Later, Mike
>
>
>