> I notice that my contribution was evaluated based on my identity rather than the quality of the work, and I’d like to understand the needs that this policy is trying to meet, because I believe there might be ways to address those needs while also accepting technically sound contributions

Wow, where can I learn to write like this? I could use this at work.

▲

cowbolt 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

It's called nonviolent communication. There are quite a few books on it but I can recommend "Say What You Mean: A Mindful Approach to Nonviolent Communication".

	▲	teekert an hour ago \| parent \| next [-]
		It's also Rose of Leary like [0]. The theory is that being helpful to someone who is (ie) competitive or offensive will force them into other, more cooperative, behaviours (among others). Once you see this pattern applied by someone it makes a lot of sense. Imho it requires some decoupling, emotional control, sometimes just "acting", but good acting, it must appear (or better yet, be) sincere to the other party. [0] https://www.toolshero.com/communication-methods/rose-of-lear...
	▲	chrisjj an hour ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		I'm pretty sure the question was sarcasm. (Upvoted.)

▲

jdironman 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Step one reframe the problem not as an attack or accusation, instead as an observation.

Step two request justification, apply pressure

Step three give them an out by working with you

▲

KellyCriterion 33 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

How shall to frame if there is actually a problem, which is not only an observation?

▲

nchmy an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

what do you do when they are not operating in good faith?

	▲	vidarh an hour ago \| parent [-]
		One of the effects of communicating this way is that people who are not operating in good faith will tend to quickly out themselves, and often getting them to do that is enough.

▲

nolok 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Parent's first paragraph will point you the right way

▲

2 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]