Re: [RFC] Prevent disruptions of conversations

On Fri, 20 Sep 2019 at 06:50, Stanislav Malyshev <smalyshev@gmail.com> wrote: > > I am not sure what is the purpose of this. Please can you look at the past 3 months of discussions on this list and ask yourself have those conversations been productive and/or pleasant? Do you think other people think those conversations have been productive and/or pleasant? If you can't see how non-productive and unpleasant those conversations have been, or can't understand that other people see them as non-productive and unpleasant, then I'm not going to be able to persuade you about the need for some rules for preventing disruption. >> Repeatedly asking people to hold off on proposing an RFC. > Why not? If I think an RFC makes no sense, why won't I suggest the > potential proposer to save themselves the effort and the negative > feelings by not proposing something which is no good? It's possible to send the same message with different emotional affect. If it's phrased as, "I think I would vote no on an RFC" it makes your message clear without making the recipient feel bad. If it's phrased as, "You shouldn't bother wasting your time, by proposing a clearly crap idea", it makes the person you are sending it to feel bad. One of those is fine, the other is really wearying behaviour. > but that's not the reason to introduce > martial law here. Trying to compare an attempt to keep the mailing list productive to 'introducing martial law' seems quite a stretch. cheers Dan Ack