Re: Confused by y-or-n-p

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>
> Cc: rudalics@gmx.at, larsi@gnus.org, juri@linkov.net,
> 	drew.adams@oracle.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org
> Date: Thu, 07 Jan 2021 02:53:09 -0500
> 
>   > > You CAN start a discussion on emacs-devel, but in order to be aware
>   > > there is a need for one, you would need to subscribe to bug-gnu-emacs
>   > > AND follow discussion of dealing with a particular bug.
> 
>   > There's no need to subscribe to bug-gnu-emacs in order to read it.
>   > One can follow the list archives via the Web browser, for example, or
>   > use the debbugs Web interface.
> 
> We are miscommunicating.  You're talking about a technical question
> about how one reads those messages.
> 
> I am talking about the time and work required to read all those
> messages -- which is why I don't read them.  I can't afford that.

Redirecting some of the discussion to emacs-devel will add to what you
have to read, and add considerably.  This present thread is a very
good example of what happens when some controversial issue is being
discussed: you will suddenly see a significant increase in the list
traffic.  Why do you think you will be able to afford that?  It will
be less than if you read all of bug-gnu-emacs, but why do you think it
will be below the threshold of what you cannot afford?

>   > The rule you propose has a price that I don't think we should pay.  I
>   > personally simply cannot afford paying it.  Reading the bug list is
>   > not a big deal,
> 
> In my incoming for 20 hours, there were 70 messages to bug-gnu-emacs
> and debbugs.

I wish I were in your shoes, then: in my incoming for the last 10
hours there were 136 messages.

> I can't keep up.  I am about to go to bed and I am 200 messages
> backlogged from today alone.
> 
> When people are discussing fixing a bug that is just a technical
> issue, and they can do it fine without me, I delete the whole thread
> so  I can have time to read my other mail.
> 
> Based on what you've said, I'm sure you understand what this is like.

Of course, I do!  I _am_ reading all of that: it's my job.

If you are unable to read most of the traffic, based on some simple
filtering of subjects, then I don't see how you can expect to be privy
to important development decisions -- they many times hide in plain
sight, and filtering based on which list they are posted to will not
help.

Maybe you expect Lars and myself to do the filtering job for you and
others: analyze the issues, decide which ones are important enough,
start threads with prominent enough Subject lines that draw attention,
etc.  But that is a large job, and it's unfair to expect us to do that
for others, especially as we have no clear idea who sees what changes
as worthy of their attention.  People who have trouble keeping up with
the traffic here, but still do want to be involved, should find their
own local solutions: smart filtering, sophisticated tools to identify
and flag messages that are worth reading, etc.  Such tools and methods
are not unheard of nowadays.  We even have some of them in Emacs.  Or
people could write them for themselves.

>                     so people who want to be more involved are invited to
>   > do that.  By contrast, the burden on Lars and myself to make sure we
>   > start a discussion about every change which might require it is
>   > considerable.
> 
> I agree.  I don't think that you, the maintainers, should have to do this.

Who will do it, then?  I already said that if volunteers step up to
this job, I certainly won't mind.  Did someone volunteer and I missed
that?

> Anyway, let's agree that you maintainers shouldn't have a burden from this.

Agreed.