From f42ca044cb24fc88f634f4f32d82f7a0356a712e Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Jon Meow Date: Mon, 2 May 2022 08:25:26 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Rephrase arguments around data versus emotional. (#1212) Right now, the text is disallowing appeals to logic (which are persuasive methods, per the linked wikipedia article). Consensus seems to be that this is unintentional. Co-authored-by: Chandler Carruth --- docs/project/evolution.md | 8 +++----- 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/project/evolution.md b/docs/project/evolution.md index 6c4cc60b32d8c..36333fd9bcfad 100644 --- a/docs/project/evolution.md +++ b/docs/project/evolution.md @@ -455,11 +455,9 @@ need to make the best decision for Carbon. It's fine that some people have a specific belief of which decision would be best; however, framing their contributions to the discussion as surfacing the information that underpins that belief will make the discussion more -constructive, welcoming, and effective. Overall, everyone should strive to -minimize their use of [rhetoric](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric) or -other -[persuasive methods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persuasion#List_of_methods) -to the extent they can. +constructive, welcoming, and effective. Overall, everyone should strive to focus +on data-based arguments to the extent they can, minimizing their use of appeals +to emotion or excessive rhetoric. None of this should preclude gathering information like polls of opinion among groups, or signaling agreement. Where community members stand and how many agree