The DIP Process

[Jonathan Marler]

On Sunday, 3 March 2019 at 02:33:26 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/2/2019 4:16 PM, Jonathan Marler wrote:
>> Oh sorry, how would I say that statement in a more 
>> professional demeanor? I genuinely wasn't sure whether or not 
>> you were are of this pattern. I admit one of my weaknesses is 
>> not always knowing how to say something in the most tactful 
>> way. I find people are more sensitive than myself so I have a 
>> hard time knowing when I've said something insensitive, or how 
>> to say it in a way that's more tactful. How could I have said 
>> that in a professional manner?
>
> Thanks for asking.
>
> You could say that what I responded to wasn't the salient part 
> of the post, and summarize what you consider to be the most 
> important.
>
> ---
>
> In general, the following would be considered inappropriate in 
> a professional setting (not just here, really anywhere):
>
> 1. impugning the motives of others
>
> 2. questioning others' intelligence, competence or mental 
> stability
>
> 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
>
> 4. obsequiousness
>
> It's discouraged because it is highly unlikely to produce 
> useful results.
>
> BTW, I'll often write a rant, then put it in my drafts folder. 
> Looking at it an hour later, I almost always sigh and just 
> delete it.

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

The rest of this response is an effort to get clarification on 
your guidelines and hopefully put together a good wiki for them.

As I read these and think about them I'm having a hard time 
understanding some of these guidelines.  For 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? Either you want to bring those sinister motives to 
light or hopefully they explain what their motives actually are 
and it bring better cooperative understanding.  How do you 
rectify this and remain professional?

In the wiki I rewrote number 2 as "Avoid personal attacks.  Avoid 
insulting another's intelligence, competence or mental 
stability.".  Feel free to modify it of course.

> 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.  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?  If so then this doesn't really match my own life 
experience with myself or other people.  I try my best to remain 
open minded but I realize my mind constantly wants to "pick a 
side" and I have to actively fight that tendency.  My own 
experience seems very consistent with how I see other people 
behave as well.  Do you hold a different view on this?


> 4. obsequiousness

Had to look this one up, but even after that I'm not sure what 
you meant by this one.