[Scummvm-devel] Team Charter

[Tarek Soliman]

Thanks Arnaud and Willem Jan for your feedback!

Arnaud Boutonné wrote:
> So, well, I'm even surprised we haven't put that somewhere on the wiki
> already, because on the main lines this is what is told to newcomers when
> they are accepted in the team

Having the conversation is more important than the document itself.
As Colin said, I am not out to change anything. I am simply trying to get
a discussion going so we can come to an agreement about what we all think
is too obvious to write down. Ostensibly we don't all agree and that's ok.
By the end of this, we will at least have a better understanding of what
the rationale for some of the points are.

Arnaud Boutonné wrote:
> Discussions on -devel often turn into noisy rants not related to the
> original topic, so it's useless to generate noise when only 2 or 3 people
> are involved. No idea how other people feel about that.

You brought up noisy rants. I will add to that sarcasm, cynicism, anger, etc.
I'll lump all of this under "inappropriate behavior".
The code of conduct should cover both what is innapropriate as well as how to
handle it.

For one thing, some of this might be too obvious. So much so, that some might
feel it is stupid to have to write this down. You'd be surprised at how not
obvious this is. I suspect most people will agree with 80% of the points.
But it is a different 80% in a way that the intersection of all of the team is
likely 10%. When we talk about the parts we don't agree with, we can unpack it
and see if we can find something that we all either agree on (or at least commit
to)



Willem Jan Palenstijn wrote:
> Defaulting to private communication in this way hides activity, and encourages
> "ownership" of code. The largest part of our codebase is engine code, and there
> should be no reason not to discuss this in public.
> 
> The default communication mode should really be public, and I would argue that
> this is also the general gist of Max' mail that Tarek refers to; in particular
> the last 6 paragraphs.
> 
> Public communication (on any issue) makes people feel more involved, and
> encourages developers to move outside the areas of the project they already
> know, increasing coherence and the feeling of being part of a team. Publicly
> visible activity is also a great motivator, as it is what makes the project
> feel alive.
> 
> If, as you say, discussions turn into noisy rants, then that is something to
> work on (and I would say Max' mail is strongly related), but should never
> preclude public communication.

This sort of thing is difficult to talk about but I feel that this document
is part of the solution to the problems causing us to not want to speak
publicly.

Consider what happens in a small private group when expectations are violated,
and someone tries to hold someone else accountable.
The person being confronted will feel attacked and act defensively. They will
see the other(s) as antagonist(s). Likely the next step will be to escalate
to the leads. This is a lose-lose situation most of the time. If the leads sides
with the defensive person, they will be seen as ineffective by one side. If they
side with the confronter(s) then they will be seen as co-angtagonists by the
other side. Add to that the the leads are involved in _all_ such situations,
and you'll understand why they burn out.

All "drama" comes from violated expectations. Hopefully this conversation and
document will help solidify the expectations, so at least when they're violated
it is not because of a misunderstanding of what the expectations are.



Arnaud Boutonné wrote:
> I remember that mail from Max, and I agree with everything even if I would
> *eventually* rephrase a sentence or two.

I agree, Max's email is emotionally charged given its context. I decided not to
initially rephrase it so that I am not forcing my interpretation.
I included the source of the email as context for why it is the way it is.

I fully expect that we will not take what Max said verbatim. We are the ones
writing this. All of us.



Walter had some points to make about using -devel.
He has mailing list issues and I was lucky enough to be on IRC and spot it.
For the sake of visibility I will echo them here until he sorts out his mailing
list issue.

> [12:09] <waltervn> in any case, I agree with Arnaud and would strongly prefer a -devel that is limited to general project matters such as GSoC or the team charter. To me this is not the place for engine-team discussions 
> [12:14] <wjp> Why? 
> [12:14] <waltervn> because we're all busy enough as it is. If -devel turns into a noisy list I'll most likely end up not reading any of it. 
> [12:16] <wjp> That should just be a matter having descriptive subjects 
> [12:17] <waltervn> that's a possible solution, similar to our commit guidelines 

I would like to propose adding an extra point to the code:

* It is ok to have strong opinions as long as they are loosely-held; Explain
  the rationale behind the opinions and be open to others giving solutions.

Only after everyone has given their reasons can there be a mutual understanding.
Mutual understanding is the pre-requisite for resolution.
Sometimes the reason isn't rational or reasonable. That is an opinion that is
strongly held. If it is also a strong opinion, then that's a problem.

Thank you Walter for being open-minded and willing to talk about the "why" and
being open to possible solutions!



Folks, let me know if you would like me to elaborate or clarify any of the
points I've made. I try to keep this brief and try to be respectful of your
time, but I sometimes end up long-winded. For that I apologize.

To all those who have not participated yet, I encourage you to participate.
The outcome of this will hopefully apply to everyone. Be part of it.



Thanks,
Tarek