On Thu, May 15, 2014 at 12:53 PM, Andy Mabbett andy@pigsonthewing.org.ukwrote:
On 14 May 2014 14:26, Everton Zanella Alvarenga everton.alvarenga@okfn.org wrote:
"How to compose a successful critical commentary [...]"
That strikes me as very long winded, and so not conducive to a succinct email exchange.
This style of communication is indeed quite longwinded and can be rather cumbersome. It also creates somewhat of a mess in mailinglist archives, and makes it far more difficult to find the exact point. It can also come across as condescending, which can make it counterproductive, and not only not worth the trouble, but actively harmful. There are definitely cases where this style isn't a good idea. I should try to keep that in mind more often.
That said, in other cases it can prevent people putting their heels in the sand, and lead to more constructive debate, and less arguing. The initially longer communication style in that case actually saves time (and frustration) in the longer run. In some ways it can be compared to band-aid fixes in software design. It might be quicker and easier now, but can lead to headaches and trouble later. Most (all?) programming best-practices should sometimes be avoided, and there can be a lively debate on when they should and shouldn't be ignored. A communication style like this can be seen as an analogy to a development best practice. Sometimes it's a good idea, sometimes it adds nothing but hassle, and sometimes its actively counterproductive and harmful. But it's always worth knowing and considering, especially since mailinglists don't tend to have an --amend switch for commits.
--Martijn
-- Andy Mabbett @pigsonthewing http://pigsonthewing.org.uk
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Guidelines Wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, mailto:wikimedia-l-request@lists.wikimedia.org?subject=unsubscribe