avox at arcor.de
Wed Apr 14 11:57:11 CEST 2010
Louis Desjardins-4 wrote:
> The first comment came from a regular poster on this list and he came
> with a user perspective. All the points he raised were new to me (and
> probably to many other readers of this list) so I learned a bit and it
> despite diverging points of view, interesting to read. The second comment
> came from another well-known and very active poster on this list and who
> also happens to be a developer and who shared his developer’s view. To be
> frank, I cannot find any of those comment “harmful”, “hostile” or
> in any way and even less "childish". Mind you, I am not a native English
> speaker... But believe me, I do have a sense of what’s going on...
> I think it is unquestionable that people can express their views and
> openly on a mailing list. This is very precisely the purpose of such
> And this ML in particular is certainly an example of well-mannered and
> discussions, including this one.
> I stand against attempts to diminish the right to speak up by framing in
> such an authoritative manner an open discussion. Moreover, I stand against
> invoking distorted arguments to shut someone’s thought down or to ridicule
> it or reduce it into a bottled formulae. If only there was a beginning of
> solid reply to what was raised by answers 1 and 2 to the original post...
> But to the noticeable exception of Riku’s answer, no. In fact, I could
> read generalities in answer to specific issues.
> Let’s concentrate on the main topic and on the reasoning.
> I also happen to disagree that this discussion could prevent anyone from
> organisation to invite the Scribus Team anywhere.
After re-reading John's first post I agree that there's nothing impolite in
there - maybe except for changing the topic from "Let's talk about
integrating Scribus and KDE" to "KDE4 sucks". While it's perfectly ok to
express this view, Christoph and others (including me) had the impression
that such a reply might be disheartening for a first-time poster. But maybe
ignoring John's post and responding directly to the OP's offer might have
been a better approach.
A suggestion in order to enhance the newbie-friendliness of this ML:
When replying to a first-time poster with a critical comment, we should
adopt the sandwich structure "Good / Bad / Good", e.g.
> Thank you very much for your interest in Scribus and your
> thought-provoking comments! [Good]
> As a newbie you might not be aware that ... [something Bad to criticize]
> We hope you enjoy Scribus and discussions on this ML. [Good]
Cushioning negative comments like that makes it more likely for the newbie
to accept those comments and avoids provoking negative feelings to the ML.
Even if they recognize it as the rhetoric device that it is, they still
realize that someone made an effort not to offend, and will still perceive
the ML as a friendly place.
Just my € 0.02.
View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/Akademy-invitation-tp28184732p28240638.html
Sent from the Scribus New mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
More information about the scribus