[SciPy-Dev] establishing a Code of Conduct for SciPy

[Ilhan Polat]

While I agree with Bennet and Matthew, I think the item should sound as
much as its importance. If it starts to sound like a Terms and Conditions
text it would defeat the purpose in my opinion. I would go along the lines
of

Help your audience by keeping the discussion focused. Your email will be
read by hundreds of people on different media (including search engine
hits). Many can only afford to skim through the mails to decide whether the
subject is related to their expertise. Placing a brief summary is a good
practice if the content does not allow for shortening. On the other hand,
this should not be taken as a basis for terseness. "Things should be as
simple as possible but not simpler."

By the way, I think the numbering is off at item 3.



On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 1:48 PM, Bennet Fauber <bennet at umich.edu> wrote:

> Matthew,
>
> Yes, precisely.  I think this is in keeping with the desire to provide
> a positive tone, suggestive of desired behavior.
>
> > "Try to help your
> > audience; your email will be read by hundreds of people, and many
> > people will read only a few lines to decide if they are interested.
> > Do you best to get to the point as fast as you can, so people can see
> > what the email will be about.  It is often useful to put a summary of
> > a few lines at the top and then explain your reasoning in more depth
> > below, for people who want to learn more."  We could point to a few
> > good examples.
>
> I hope this modification gets closer to convergence.
>
> Help your audience.  Your email will be read by hundreds of people.
> You may find summarizing at the beginning and providing fuller
> explanation of your reasoning below helpful, to yourself as well as
> your readers.  Many people will scan the first few lines to see if the
> message is pertinent to their interests and expertise.  Help them and
> future readers who may be sifting hundreds of search engine hits.  See
> <URL> for a few select examples.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 5:13 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 3, 2017 at 12:28 AM, Bennet Fauber <bennet at umich.edu> wrote:
> >> I am more a lurker than a contributor, but I would like to suggest
> >> caution with respect to item #5 in the proposed CoC.
> >>
> >> +5. Be concise. Keep in mind that what you write once will be read by
> hundreds
> >> + of persons. Writing a short email means people can understand the
> >> + conversation as efficiently as possible. Short emails should always
> strive
> >> + to be empathetic, welcoming, friendly and patient. When a long
> explanation
> >> + is necessary, consider adding a summary.
> >>
> >> I suggest that you should stress more that people should strive for
> >> clarity and completeness, and then say that brief and comprehensive is
> >> the desired goal.  I think you're leaning on short too hard, and that
> >> will encourage incomplete more than real concision.
> >>
> >> There are my reasons:  1) one person's concise could well be another's
> >> incomplete.  2) There are many, many terms that have more than one
> >> use, or that have different meanings in different contexts, or may
> >> have connotations; sometimes being concise leads to use of seemingly
> >> unambiguous terms that do turn out to be ambiguous.
> >>
> >> For those who would reply that the definition of 'concise' implies
> >> completeness, as in the definition given:
> >>
> >>     giving a lot of information clearly and in a few words; brief but
> >> comprehensive.
> >>
> >> In popular speech, and to those who may have been over-exposed to some
> >> kinds of management, concise is more likely to be interpreted as
> >> 'abbreviated', which highlights my second point above.  I myself often
> >> interpret 'concise' to mean 'short' and often 'abbreviated', because
> >> that is what I have (alas) become accustomed to in my work
> >> environment.
> >>
> >> Language evolved to have a lot of redundancy built into it for a
> >> reason.  Stripping it of too much is as bad as including too much.
> >>
> >> I hope I was sufficiently concise.  ;-)
> >
> > I agree with the general idea.  Concise emails can be very
> > intimidating, as in "it's so obvious you are wrong I can't be bothered
> > to explain why".  It's can also be an alienating sign, as in "I'm so
> > senior here that there is no need for me to explain my reasoning".
> >
> > Maybe a better way to put it, is something like "Try to help your
> > audience; your email will be read by hundreds of people, and many
> > people will read only a few lines to decide if they are interested.
> > Do you best to get to the point as fast as you can, so people can see
> > what the email will be about.  It is often useful to put a summary of
> > a few lines at the top and then explain your reasoning in more depth
> > below, for people who want to learn more."  We could point to a few
> > good examples.
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Matthew
> > _______________________________________________
> > SciPy-Dev mailing list
> > SciPy-Dev at python.org
> > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at python.org
> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20171003/0bc5a8cc/attachment-0001.html>