>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
Russ> Martin Steigerwald <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> Russ Allbery - 28.10.17, 16:13:
>>> There wasn't *anything* "left out" of that discussion.
>> In my opinion this is a pretty bold statement.
>> If everyone has been heard, noticed, felt and valued, if
>> everything has been covered, then why are we discussing it… yet
>> again now?
Russ> Those are not equivalent statements. In that sort of
Russ> discussion, it is literally impossible to make everyone feel
Russ> valued, since at least some people on each side will only feel
Russ> valued if their preferred option is chosen. That's therefore
Russ> not a reasonable thing to attempt to achieve; we can try to
Russ> maximize the number of people who feel valued, but there are
Russ> usually at least some people involved in this large and
Russ> sprawling of a decision for whom "valued" is synonymous with
Russ> "agreed with."
For myself, I've found that if I work with people I can often get to a
point where they feel valued even when there is disagreement.
As you point out that's not true for some people and it is difficult
even when it is possible.
I was not planning on discussing systemd again.
I am discussing how we handle conflict because I hope we can do a better
job of helping people feel valued even when we do not agree with their
In the limit, I hope to do your literally impossible:-)
Fortunately, I'd be thrilled and filled with joy to simply get closer to
that limit. Helping create a culture where we have mechanisms to help
ourselves separate value from agreement, and where we value using those
mechanisms would delight me.
I think even that is a hard ask, but I do not think it is literally