Re: CoC, inclusivity etc. (was "Re: [...] systemd timers on Linux")

[Phillip Susi <phill@thesusis.net>]

Jeff King writes:

>   - temper small corrections with positive feedback. Especially for new
>     contributors, being told explicitly "yes, what you're trying to do
>     here overall is welcome, and it all looks good except for this..."
>     is much more encouraging than "this part is wrong". In the latter,
>     they're left to guess if anybody even values the rest of the work at
>     all.

When I see only a minor nit like that I assume that by default, that
means there are no more serious issues, fix the typo, and resubmit.  If
a new contributor thinks that means they aren't welcome then I think
they have an expectation mismatch.

>   - likewise, I think it helps to give feedback on expectations for the
>     process. Saying explicitly "this looks good; I think with this style
>     change, it would be ready to get picked up" helps them understand
>     that the fix will get them across the finish line (as opposed to
>     just getting another round of fix requests).

That would be nice, but such comments can really only come from a
maintainer that plans on pushing the patch.  Most comments come from
bystanders and so nessesarily only consist of pointing out flaws, and
don't really need to be bloated with a bunch of fluff.  I prefer short,
and to the point communication.

> I would even extend some of those into the code itself. Obviously we
> don't want to lower the bar and take incorrect code, or even typos in
> error messages. But I think we could stand to relax sometimes on issues
> of style or "I would do it like this" (and at the very least, the
> "temper small corrections" advice may apply).

Isn't saying "I would do it like this" already a tempering statement?  I
take that as meaning there isn't anything neccesarily wrong with what
you did, but you might consider this advice.