SIPB Social Advice SIPB is an awesome place for interacting with computers, but there are people here too! Sometimes though, the line between these gets blurred in our heads, and we end up interacting with people as if they are machines, which results in a sour experience for all parties involved. So, we've come up with a set of core principles that we feel is important to keep in mind when interacting with our mortal counterparts: 1) People don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel. 2) Be sincere. 3) Don't be a jerk. 4) Keep (1) through (3) *especially* in mind when interacting online: email, zephyr, etc. Computers have a knack for making human interactions less than human. Sounds simple, right? Unfortunately, it isn't. People aren't usually purposefully being unfeeling, insincere, or a jerk, but it still happens; c.f. computers vs. humans, we're not perfect. So, we've also collected guidelines regarding common examples of where people forget these principles and accidentally contribute to a junky social environment. They're not comprehensive, but we think they catch the most common pitfalls. Perfection is not required for participation We want people to participate in SIPB projects without feeling like they're going to get flamed for not knowing very much. Obviously, this means that you shouldn't be chastising prospectives for making mistakes. Less obviously, you shouldn't be chastising people who "should know better" in public, either. Remember that prospectives are listening (in the office, on zephyr, on email lists, etc.) and might think that such criticism might be directed at them if they make an error. This doesn't mean you can't give people suggestions on how to do better, but please don't do so in a way that suggests that they're a bad person for doing what they did, that they should have done better, or that their contribution wasn't worth making. Be careful expressing surprise This first principle is aimed at discouraging the practice of acting overly surprised when someone says they don't know something. This applies to both technical things ("What?! I can't believe you don't know what Hesiod is!") and non-technical things ("You don't know who RMS is?!"). That's not to say you may not be genuinely surprised when someone doesn't know something that you have taken for granted. But consider whether the person, who has already admitted to not knowing something, wants to be further reminded of it by your reaction. Even when it's not your intention to upset someone, it's almost always the end result. We want SIPB to be a place where people feel safe saying "I don't know" or "I don't understand", because those are the first steps to learning. We don't want an environment where people don't feel like a "real" SIPB member/prospective because they don't know what wget(1) or nc(1) are. Avoid over-correcting others ("Well, actually...") It's hard to resist the urge to demonstrate your knowledge of a subject; SIPB is as much as place for teaching as it is a place for learning. However, it can be really off-putting when that urge manifests itself by someone over-correcting someone else, usually by pointing out a subtle technicality. These are easy to spot because they almost always start "Well, actually...". While "Well, actually" may be appropriate when conveying a major correction or preventing someone from making a dangerous mistake, you may wish to consider finding a different way to say it. Remember, people don't remember what you tell them, they remember how you make them feel. Back-seat driving is disruptive If you overhear people working through a problem, avoid intermittently lobbing advice across the room. This can lead to the "too many cooks" problem, but more importantly, it can be rude and disruptive to half-participate in a conversation. This isn't to say you shouldn't help, offer advice, or join conversations. On the contrary, we encourage all those things. Rather, it just means that when you want to help out or work with others, you should fully engage and not just butt in sporadically. Somewhat relatedly, when one person is trying to explain a tool or concept, keep in mind that they may have a plan for what order they're going to introduce ideas in. It can be very disruptive to have somebody interject with something you weren't planning to cover until later, and need to rearrange your ordering. No subtle sexism, racism, etc. Our next principle bans subtle sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. (Overt prejudice is, of course, right out.) This one is different from the ones above it, because it's often not a specific, observable phenomenon ("well-actually's" are easy to spot because they almost always start with the words "well, actually..."). Unlike many of the situations described in our other guidelines, these sorts of incidents may not take the form of a comment directed at a specific individual. In situations like this, anyone who observes the behavior should feel empowered to talk to the people involved or bring it to the attention of the EC. If someone says a comment you made was sexist, racist, or otherwise discriminatory, please do not enter into a protracted debate about it, and never tell someone that their feelings are not valid. Instead, apologize and move on. If, after reflecting on your comment, you still genuinely do not see any bias in your comment, you can contact a member of the EC to discuss the incident further. The most sincere apologies consist of "I'm sorry" An apology should be a sincere expression of sadness for the sadness of others. If you apologize but then qualify your apology with "...that", "...if", "...but", you'll likely make the recipient feel like you're implying that they share some of the blame for the incident; it won't feel like an apology to them. Sometimes, people are tempted to say "I'm sorry, but" (etc.) because they don't want to concede their point in a discussion. But this sort of "I'm sorry" isn't really an apology, and is an insincere use of the words. Being sorry that someone else feels bad doesn't mean that you necessarily agree with them, it just means that you recognize that they're upset and sincerely wish that weren't the case. What happens if someone violates these principles? Our social principles and clarifying guidelines are intended to be a set of things we can mutually agree to strive to live by as a community. They aren't intended to be a stick to beat people with for "being bad". However, it's still important that people be able to help improve the social environment when they see something they think is destructive; the following paragraphs describe the best way to go about it. Under any circumstance, however, if someone's behavior or speech in the office is making you feel uncomfortable or unwelcome, and you do not feel comfortable talking to that person, please contact a member of the EC. If you feel someone has contributed negatively to a SIPB social environment (in the office, on a SIPB email list, on our zephyr classes, etc.), we encourage you to reach out to that person (or the intended target, if you are a third party) and discuss your thoughts with them. Publicly calling someone out is generally ill-suited to any electronic medium, because it can result in a heated conversation that is not only distracting, but may in the long run be more toxic than the original comment. If you choose to call someone out in person, focus on what they said or did, and not on the person themselves. Finally, if you yourself realize that you just violated these principles, call yourself out on it publicly. Doing so will help convey that these issues are important to the community, and may help empower others to speak up. It doesn't mean you're a "bad" person, or even a "bad" SIPB member. Above all, you should *always* feel welcome to approach the Chair or any member of the EC regarding *any* issue, social or otherwise.