From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Gitlab Migration Date: Fri, 03 Sep 2021 09:06:57 +0300 Message-ID: <83bl5ayyym.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87h7fcnmq0.fsf@posteo.net> <83tujbqg4j.fsf@gnu.org> <46353190-1190-495f-b15e-22980159b3ab@yandex.ru> <83y28mp0rb.fsf@gnu.org> <51a363db-fde7-791d-cf8d-98ac601d62ee@yandex.ru> <57ca4d78-2339-201d-edce-678c9b003a99@yandex.ru> <83bl5dsh8b.fsf@gnu.org> <8335qps8vs.fsf@gnu.org> <9471c28f-8eae-b555-ee86-9fffd6229937@yandex.ru> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10738"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: philipk@posteo.net, danflscr@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, john@yates-sheets.org To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 03 08:07:53 2021 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1mM2Mi-0002ao-AE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 08:07:52 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:38986 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM2Mg-0005Un-Dh for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 02:07:50 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:35932) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM2M4-0004pQ-KP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 02:07:12 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:60842) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM2M2-0005Ns-2Q; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 02:07:10 -0400 Original-Received: from 84.94.185.95.cable.012.net.il ([84.94.185.95]:1622 helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mM2Lu-0003GP-3Z; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 02:07:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: <9471c28f-8eae-b555-ee86-9fffd6229937@yandex.ru> (message from Dmitry Gutov on Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:02:25 +0300) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:273745 Archived-At: > Cc: eliz@gnu.org, danflscr@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net, > monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org > From: Dmitry Gutov > Date: Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:02:25 +0300 > > > > Ah, but the model is opt-in to change, not opt-out. Thus > > > opponents of change start off with an advantage > > > > That's ok. We don't have any obligation to be "fair" to > > wishes for changes that other users don't like. > > We're literally under no "obligation" to anything. But is it a good outcome? > > Under the current system a sufficiently loud single user can effectively > veto any change. Or at least 3-4 such users. > > But even 5 or 10 users are in no way representative of our entire user base. Opt-in changes are an effective way of dealing with such resistance. They cannot be easily vetoed.