The DIP Process

[Jonathan Marler]

On Monday, 4 March 2019 at 06:41:36 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/3/2019 8:29 AM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Thanks for taking the time to respond to this one. I'm putting 
>> up a wiki:
>> 
>> https://wiki.dlang.org/?title=Guidelines_for_Professional_Conduct
>
> Please don't. We're about D, we're not about being any sort of 
> authority on manners. I particularly don't want to codify 
> things in a way that becomes something written in a lawyerly 
> fashion for people looking to conform to the letter yet violate 
> the spirit.

I can appreciate this argument as earlier in this thread I was 
just using the same argument to describe a problem with the 
current DIP process.  That people are rigidly adhering to the 
process and forgetting the spirit of it.

My issue here is that these guidelines are not obvious to me and 
I've seen others question what they are as well. That being said, 
I think your concern of "rigid adherence" can be addressed by 
being careful with how the guidelines are presented. This is why 
I changed the wording in your response from

     "do not do X".

to
     "avoid X" and "consider X"


Because of your concern, I've also added a statement that these 
are not rules to be followed to the letter and included a list of 
"goals" to describe the "sprit of the guidelines".  I'm not sure 
what these goals are so I just included one and am hoping for it 
to be filled in by the leadership.

>
> I suggest anyone looking for an authority on it to pick out one 
> of the "Emily Post" books on Amazon.

At work I have also been known to be "intimidating" at times and 
can come off as rude and insensitive.  I know you are probably 
shocked!  I don't want to be this way and I try hard not to be.  
I take this stuff seriously and I am taking your suggestions 
seriously.  I see a fair number of books, which ones would you 
specifically recommend?

>
>
>> TFor example, "impugning the motives of others".  In simple 
>> terms I understand this to mean "accusing someone of having 
>> sinister motives".  In my mind, if someone is behaving in a 
>> way that appears to be caused by sinister motives, wouldn't 
>> you want to point that out and ask them about it?
>
> No. It is extremely rude to do so, and in every case I know of 
> the accuser was wrong about it.

This is very interesting to me. To clarify, you're saying that if 
you suspect someone has sinister motives that you shouldn't say 
anything about it. This is very contradictory to my current world 
view. I've come to believe that if something is wrong then you 
should bring it out in the open so that it can be resolved rather 
than letting it simmer and get worse. However, I also believe 
that the way in which you discuss it is VERY IMPORTANT and is 
often the deciding factor in whether or not it can be resolved.  
So if I understand you correctly, you're saying that some things 
should never be discussed.  Futhermore, if you think someone has 
bad motives, you're probably wrong, so you should drop it and not 
ask the person what their motives actually are. This is so 
fundamentally different to how I think. I will have to think on 
this more and reconsider my current beliefs I listed above.

>
>
>>> 3. believing one's argument is so compelling that others must 
>>> have been secretly convinced, and are continuing to disagree 
>>> out of dishonesty, cussedness or attempts to save face
>> 
>> This one is confusing to me.  It doesn't appear to be a 
>> guideline for professional conduct, more like a guideline to 
>> life and how to view other people.
>
> The two are the same.
>
>
>> It sounds like you're saying we should assume that people are 
>> always "open minded" and that they never let pride get in the 
>> way of things.  Is this correct or did I misunderstand?
>
> It's a misunderstanding. It's not about the Bob continuing to 
> disagree, it's
> about Fred asserting that Bob couldn't honestly disagree, that 
> Bob must be trying to save face.
>
> I've seen (3) many times in this forum, and don't care to see 
> it again. No, I'm not going to identify particular instances.
>
> I'm reminded of something a lawyer told me long ago:
>
> 1. When the law is on your side, argue the law.
> 2. When justice is on your side, argue for justice.
> 3. When neither the law nor justice is on your side, engage in 
> character assassination.

I think you're reasoning here matches that previous one.  You're 
saying that if you suspect someone isn't being convinced by your 
argument because of some other reason besides your argument, 
you're probably wrong.  It's unlikely that the person who 
disagrees with you is doing so because they dislike you or 
because they have an agenda. You shouldn't ask them about it 
because doing so would be rude and it's unlikely that it's true. 
So just assume you're suspicions are wrong and continue.

I would say I agree with this up to a point.  I personally try to 
give people the "benefit of the doubt" when it comes to these 
things.  However, I would stipulate that if you see what appears 
to be repeated vindictive behavior then at some point it should 
be addressed and discussed between the parties.