Re: [win-pv-devel] [PATCH v4 6/7] Add guide on Communication Best Practice

[Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 15/01/2020, 10:47, "George Dunlap" <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

    On 1/13/20 9:21 PM, Lars Kurth wrote:
    > 
    > 
    > On 13/01/2020, 19:54, "George Dunlap" <George.Dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
    > 
    >     
    >     > On Dec 30, 2019, at 7:32 PM, Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
wrote:
    >     > 
    >     > From: Lars Kurth <lars.kurth@xxxxxxxxxx>
    >     > 
    >     > This guide covers the bulk on Best Practice related to code review
    >     > It primarily focusses on code review interactions
    >     > It also covers how to deal with Misunderstandings and Cultural
    >     > Differences
    >     > 
    >     > +### Avoid opinion: stick to the facts
    >     
    >     In my talk on this subject I said “Avoid *inflammatory language*”.  
At some level it’s good to have strong opinions on what code should look like.  
It’s not opinions that are a problem, or even expressing opinions, but 
expressing them in a provocative or inflammatory way.
    > 
    > Let me look at this again: I don't feel strongly about it
    > 
    > I changed the title because I felt that the bulk of the 
    > example is actually about sticking to the facts an opinion 
    > and the inflammatory element was secondary. So it felt more
    > natural to me to change the title.
    
    Right; the point though specifically is that people's natural, and
    probably healthy response to poorly-written code, or to
    inconsiderately-written patch series in any way, is to use charged
    language.  I wouldn't call any code "garbage", but code submitted is
    sometimes actually terrible, fragile, spaghetti, inefficient, racy,
    messy -- whatever bad things you can say about it -- and any
    well-trained developer will have the same opinion.
    
[snip]
    
    I think people should be able to pick up what we mean from the reasoning
    and from the examples.
    
I attached a conversation log on IRC and a diff against this snippet of the 
code for a resolution    

‹lars_kurth›  gwd: I just read your feedback on the CoC. I now agree with your 
argument that "Avoid opinion:  stick to the facts" is a bad heading for that 
section     
‹lars_kurth›  gwd: however I still dont like “Avoid *inflammatory language*” - 
I am wondering whether "Avoid language that triggers a negative response" would 
be better 
‹gwd›   What is it you don't like about "inflammatory"? 
‹lars_kurth›  Also, I think I need to re-write some of the bridging paragraphs 
to fit the title 
‹gwd›  (Not arguing for 'inflammatory' per se, but knowing what you don't like 
about it helps if I'm trying to find an alternative) 
‹lars_kurth›  Firstly it is now somewhat politically charged (in some 
cultures), secondly I am not sure how well it translates and how clear it is to 
non-native english speakers 
‹gwd›  Any opinions on the other words I suggested? 
‹lars_kurth›  Provocative seems ok 
* Diziet reads the thread.
‹lars_kurth›  "charged"? "loaded"? seems too generic 
‹lars_kurth›  "derogatory"? "contemptuous"? seems to be too harsh and infer too 
much bad intent
‹Diziet›  "avoid ... emotive" maybe ? [11:18:15]        [11:18:31]      
‹Diziet›  "avoid derogatory or emotive language" ? 
‹lars_kurth›  Diziet, gwd: I think emotive is good and we can add derogatory 
‹gwd›  Doesn't "emotive" include positive emotions? "This patch is amazing, 
thank you" is a lot better than "This patch effictively simplifies this 
codebase very well, thank you". :-) 
‹lars_kurth›  That is true 
‹lars_kurth›  The same would be true for charged and loaded 
‹Diziet›  gwd: Hrm
‹Diziet›  To be unambiguous I think only "negatively charged" will do. You 
can't have "negatively emotive" or some such. 
‹Diziet›  You could say "avoid emotive criticism" 
‹gwd›  I feel like "charged" is used more often for negative things.
‹lars_kurth›  OK. Let's stick with Inflammatory and I can replace "Key to this 
is what we call **stick to the facts**. The same is true when a patch author is 
responding to a comment from a reviewer." in the first paragraph with a 
sentence that clarifies that the intention is to avoid triggering negativity 
‹lars_kurth›  I am going to draft some text for this section and send it in 
response rather than doing a new version for now 
‹gwd›  +
‹Diziet›  I think `derogatory' and `emotive criticism' and `negatively charged' 
are all better than `inflammatory'. 
‹Diziet›  But `inflammatory' will do.
‹lars_kurth›  The section as it is comes across as a little clumsy (in that it 
doesn't flow well
‹lars_kurth›  As an aside: does anyone know how I can redact text in markdown? 
I guess I can just add "<redacted>" for words I dont want to show 
‹Diziet›  https://stackoverflow.com/questions/4823468/comments-in-markdown 
‹gwd›  lars_kurth: That's what I would do. (Although I would use [], which are 
more traditional for edits to quoted text.)
‹Diziet›  Oh I see, we're talking about the oebxra gbrf thing
‹Diziet›  I would just write literally [redacted].
‹Diziet›  Or rot13 it as I just did but the audience of the CoC will have no 
idea what that is even if you add a footnote "rot13 for injury/violence trigger"
‹lars_kurth›  gwd, Diziet: [redacted] it is


And here is the diff

@@ -74,17 +74,20 @@ clarifications to a review or responding to questions. A 
simple
 
 is normally sufficient.
 
-### Avoid opinion: stick to the facts
+### Avoid inflammatory and negatively charged language
 
 The way how a reviewer expresses feedback, has a big impact on how the author
-perceives the feedback. Key to this is what we call **stick to the facts**.
+perceives the feedback. Choosing negatively charged language such as your code
+is terrible, fragile, spaghetti, inefficient, racy, messy, etc. creates a
+negative emotional response in the submitter, which can then make subsequent
+communication difficult.
 The same is true when a patch author is responding to a comment from a
 reviewer.
 
 One of our maintainers has been studying Mandarin for several years and has
 come across the most strongly-worded dictionary entry [he has ever seen][1].
-This example illustrates the problem of using opinion in code reviews vs.
-using facts extremely well.
+This example illustrates the differences between an inflammatory and fact-based
+description extremely well.
 
 > 裹脚 (guo3 jiao3): foot-binding (a vile feudal practice which crippled women
 > both physically and spiritually)
@@ -106,11 +109,10 @@ Compare this to the [Wikipedia entry][2]
 > started during the winter months since the feet were more likely to be numb,
 > and therefore the pain would not be as extreme. …The toes on each foot
 > were curled under, then pressed with great force downwards and squeezed
-> into the sole of the foot until the toes broke…
+> into the sole of the foot until [redacted] ...
 
-Without going into the details of foot-binding, it is noticeable that none of
-what is written above uses opinion which could be interpreted as inflammatory
-language. It is a list of simple facts that are laid out in a way that make it
+Without going into the details of foot-binding, it is noticeable that the
+definition is a list of simple facts that are laid out in a way that make it
 obvious what the correct conclusion is.
 
 Because the Wikipedia entry is entirely fact based it is more powerful and
@@ -120,7 +122,7 @@ Making statements in code reviews such as
 > Your code is garbage
 > This idea is stupid
 
-besides being an opinion is rude and counter productive
+besides negatively charged, rude and counter productive
 * It will make the patch author angry: instead of finding a solution to the
   problem the author will spend time and mental energy wrestling with their
   feelings

@George, @Ian: let me know whether this is better and addresses your
concerns

Lars

_______________________________________________
win-pv-devel mailing list
win-pv-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/win-pv-devel