"There's a reason emotions exist and to lobotomise yourself won't make you a better business person."
This. If the other party has identified you as a mark for their scheme, non-emotional professional haggling will result in the worst case in profit for the hostile party, and even at best will be a total waste of time for you and exhausting.
I.e. it's
"Excuse me sir I notice an acidic liquid flowing from your direction. I would appreciate if you could either maneuver yourself or stop the said liquid flow as the volume of fluid gets in contact with my countenance."
v.s.
"Stop peeing on my face you **hole!"
You should not aggravate situations beyond reasonable bounds, should not become a sosiopathic professional victim and so on - but for a person of healthy psychological state, your emotions definetly are a valuable guide.
I find it fairly important to be “human,” in my interactions; professional, or otherwise.
That said, I’m also responsible for keeping the tenor of my communication constructive.
There will be mistakes (on my part, and on the part of others), as well as miscommunications, but they can be kept to a minimum, and addressed on a case-by-case basis.
I’m a big believer in sincere, appropriate, apologies. They have been enormously effective, in my own career.
I won’t apologize for breathing your oxygen, but I also won’t avoid taking responsibility and accountability for what’s mine.
When we weasel out of responsibility, we also surrender agency and power. If it’s our fault, it is also our bailiwick. An apology may seem like a weakness, but it can actually be the opposite.
I agree the part about the low expectations of the foundation isn't constructive, but I feel like some open display of emotion is necessary after a person openly refuses to have an honest discussion. In the PR she repeatedly ignores the maintainer to push her changes. Then in the 'apology' she doesn't really apologize and isn't really straightforward about what really happened. In the PR the maintainers were pretty reasonable in their communication and it didn't really change the directors approach. I feel like when communicating with someone who repeatedly works in bad faith at some point all you can do is walk away. This emotional poster is doing that but before doing so making sure it is clear to others that this is not okay. I think that's better than saying "I repectfully disagree" because that makes it seem like it's just a slight misunderstanding rather than someone working in bad faith.
This. If the other party has identified you as a mark for their scheme, non-emotional professional haggling will result in the worst case in profit for the hostile party, and even at best will be a total waste of time for you and exhausting.
I.e. it's "Excuse me sir I notice an acidic liquid flowing from your direction. I would appreciate if you could either maneuver yourself or stop the said liquid flow as the volume of fluid gets in contact with my countenance." v.s. "Stop peeing on my face you **hole!"
You should not aggravate situations beyond reasonable bounds, should not become a sosiopathic professional victim and so on - but for a person of healthy psychological state, your emotions definetly are a valuable guide.