From 09e93283b0fed502791aaa79cc0744b6c2c381d3 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jonathan Reed Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 21:02:09 -0500 Subject: Add a copy of dove's document for reference only Add a copy of the draft dove submitted, for reference only, so it's in the same place while this is being worked on --- contrib/principles.txt | 153 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 153 insertions(+) create mode 100644 contrib/principles.txt diff --git a/contrib/principles.txt b/contrib/principles.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..1b93607 --- /dev/null +++ b/contrib/principles.txt @@ -0,0 +1,153 @@ +SIPB Social Principles + +SIPB is an awesome place for interacting with computers, but there are +people here too! Sometimes though, the line between these gets blurred +in our heads, and we end up interacting with people like they are +machines, which results in a sour experience for all parties involved. +So, we've come up with a set of core principles that we feel is +important to keep in mind when interacting with our mortal +counterparts: + +1) People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you +make them feel. + +2) Be sincere. + +3) Don't be a jerk. + +4) Keep (1) through (3) *especially* in mind when interacting online: +email, zephyr, etc. Computers have a knack for making human +interactions less than human. + +Sounds simple, right? Unfortunately, it isn't. People aren't usually +purposefully being unfeeling, insincere, or a jerk, but it still +happens; c.f. computers vs. humans, we're not perfect. So, we've also +collected guidelines regarding common examples of where people forget +these principles and accidentally contribute to a junky social +environment. They're not comprehensive, but we think they catch the +most common pitfalls. + + +---Perfection is not required for participation--- + +We want people to participate in SIPB projects without feeling like +they're going to get flamed for not knowing very much. Obviously, this +means that you shouldn't be chastising prospectives for making +mistakes. Less obviously, you shouldn't be chastising people who +"should know better" in public either. Remember that prospectives are +listening (in the office, on zephyr, on email lists, etc.) and might +think that such criticism might be directed at them if they make an +error. + +This doesn't mean you can't give people suggestions on how to do +better, but please don't do so in a way that suggests that they're bad +person for doing what they did, that they should have done better, or +that their contribution wasn't worth making. + +---Be careful expressing surprise--- + +Expressing surprise can often make people feel pretty poorly. This is +particularly true when it is surprise that someone doesn't know +something or surprise about the way someone tried to do something, +regardless of whether it is genuine surprise or not. This applies to +both technical things ("What?! I can't believe you don't know what +Hesiod is!") and non-technical things ("You don't know who RMS is?!"). + +We want SIPB to be a place where people feel safe saying "I don't +know" or "I don't understand", because those are the first steps to +learning. We don't want an environment where people don't feel like a +"real" SIPB member/prospective because they don't know what wget(1) or +nc(1) are. + +---Try not to over-correct people ("well-actually's")--- + +It's hard to resist the urge to demonstrate your knowledge about a +subject; SIPB is as much as place for teaching as it is a place for +learning. However, it can be really off-putting when that urge +manifests itself by someone over-correcting someone else, usually by +pointing out a subtle technicality. These are easy to spot because +they almost always start "Well, actually...". While "Well, actually" +may be appropriate when conveying a major correction or preventing +someone from making a dangerous mistake, you may wish to consider +finding a different way to say it. + +---Back-seat driving is disruptive--- + +If you overhear people working through a problem, you avoid +intermittently lobbing advice across the room. This can lead to the +"too many cooks" problem, but more important, it can be rude and +disruptive to half-participate in a conversation. This isn't to say +you shouldn't help, offer advice, or join conversations. On the +contrary, we encourage all those things. Rather, it just means that +when you want to help out or work with others, you should fully engage +and not just butt in sporadically. + +Somewhat relatedly, when one person is trying to explain a tool or +concept, keep in mind that they may have a plan for what order they're +going to introduce ideas in. It can be very disruptive to have +somebody interject with something you weren't planning to cover until +later, and need to rearrange your ordering. + +---No subtle sexism, racism, etc.--- + +It should go without saying that sexism, racism, and other forms of +discrimination are not welcome at SIPB. Some things though may not be +overtly discriminatory at the surface but are still offensive in this +way. Be mindful of this, and avoid contributing things that you feel +have this property. + +Unlike many of the situations described in our other guidelines, these +sorts of incidents may not take the form a comment directed at a +specific individual. In situations like this, anyone who observes the +behavior should feel empowered to talk to the people involved or bring +it to the attention of the EC. + +If someone says a comment you made was sexist, racist, or otherwise +discriminatory, please do not enter into a protracted debate about it, +and never tell someone that their feelings are not valid. Instead, +apologize and move on. If, after reflecting on your comment, you still +genuinely do not see any bias in your comment, you can contact a +member of the EC to discuss the incident further. + +---The most sincere apologies consist of "I'm sorry"--- + +An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness +of others. If you apologize but then qualify your apology with +"...that", "...if", "...but", you'll likely make the recipient feel +like you're implying that they share some of the blame for the +incident; it won't feel like an apology to them. + +Sometimes, people are tempted to say "I'm sorry, but" (etc.) because +they don't want to concede their point in a discussion. But this sort +of "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology, and is an insincere use of the +words. Being sorry that someone else feels bad doesn't mean that you +necessarily agree with them, it just means that you recognize that +they're upset and sincerely wish that weren't the case. + +---"Captain! Lieutenant Foobar violated SIPB Directive 1337!"--- + +"Put that phaser back in its holster, Commander!" Our social +principles and clarifying guidelines are intended to be a set of +things we can mutually agree to strive to live by as a community. They +aren't intended to be a stick to beat people with. However, it's still +important that people be able to help improve the social environment +when they see something they think is destructive. + +If you feel someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social +environment (in the office, on a SIPB email list, on our zephyr +classes, etc.), we encourage you to reach out to the speaker and/or +the intended target privately and discuss your thoughts with them. It +is usually best not to do this publicly as that often triggers +defensive reflexes, involves even more people, and results in a heated +conversation that is both distracting and often more toxic than the +original comment. + +Again, "People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how +you make them feel.". Although Lt. Foobar may have made you feel +sucky, you should still keep this principle in mind when addressing it +with them. A harsh, public call-out will likely make them feel like +you want to attack them, not that you want SIPB to be a better place. + +Above all however, you should *always* feel welcome to approach the +Chair or the rest of the EC regarding *any* issue, social or +otherwise. -- cgit v1.2.3