bug#16155: 24.3.50;

[Josh <josh@foxtail.org>]

On Dec 17, 2013 4:54 PM, "Drew Adams" <drew.adams@oracle.com> wrote:
>
> > > And yet none of that data (however flakey or incomplete) was
> > > considered in deciding to make this change in default behavior.
> >
> > To be fair, this was debated at some length[0] and presumably
> > decided a couple of months ago, well before that data became
> > available.
> >
> > [0] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2013-10/msg00407.html
>
> "To be fair", I already said that this was decided before
> that poll was taken.  That was the main point: it was decided
> without benefit of any poll or automatically gathered data.

Ah, I incorrectly concluded from the passage I quoted that you believed
that the decision had been made after the data had been collected.

> I feel somewhat more strongly that the process followed is
> not the best one (insufficient attention to users - and not
> just emacs-devel readers).

Decisions that are contrary to the majority opinion, whether it be of
contributors or users or both, don't bother me much when they're
transparent and driven by ethical, legal, or other considerations that
demand a particular course of action, for example Richard's decision
to stick with Bazaar by virtue of its status as a GNU project.  Often,
though, there is no such transparency and no overriding considerations
are stated, even upon request, and to me this unwillingness to
engage substantively with others during the process of making such
decisions suggests that our involvement is unwelcome.