Re: [ELPA] New package: dape

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2023 09:53:46 -0500
> Cc: adam@alphapapa.net, daniel@dpettersson.net, dmitry@gutov.dev,
>  emacs-devel@gnu.org, joaotavora@gmail.com, john@yates-sheets.org,
>  krister.schuchardt@gmail.com, philipk@posteo.net
> From: Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>
> 
> >> While friendly, gentle suggestions are ok, the pressure being put 
> >> on authors in this process is unbecoming, to say the least.
> > 
> > Please stop the insinuations.  There's no pressure.  We are asking 
> > authors to consider changing the names, that's all; if they don't 
> > agree, the issue is dropped on the floor.
> 
> I don't mean to insinuate.  I mean to share observations and 
> experiences.  You and others may not intend to pressure authors, but 
> when a thread bikeshedding a name goes on for 10 or 20 messages with 
> numerous authors piling on their own hues, it can feel, to the author, 
> like he is being pressured to change his mind, or that his contribution 
> is being, well, taken away, to an extent.

I very much doubt that authors feel this way, but even if they do,
that feeling is unjustified, even if the 10 or 20 figures are correct
(which I'm not at all sure they are: for example, in the current case
I don't think there were anywhere near 10 or 20 messages asking to
change the name).

> This is especially so when it is not made clear, up front, that the 
> author's decision will be accepted in the end, even if he politely 
> declines to rename the library.

It should be abundantly clear that the authors have the last word on
this.  How else can it be?  It is the author who contributes the
package, so we have no means of forcing him or her to do anything they
don't want.  Even suggesting that is an insult of sorts.

> This is not only my own experience.  The way this issue recurs when 
> packages are submitted is noticed in the wider community, and it harms 
> GNU ELPA's reputation.  I report this observation with the intent to 
> help, not to insinuate or insult.

I'm sorry, but these experiences are wrong, and I dare to say that
posts like yours are at least one factor for these incorrect
conclusions.

Once again: there's no pressure, and there can be no pressure.  It's
an illusion.

> My view is that a name should be chosen with respect to various 
> criteria; a name's being self-explanatory is one of them, but is not the 
> only, nor even the highest, concern.

There can always be a better name, all these considerations
notwithstanding.  So we will continue asking authors to consider
changing the names when the original name is far from being
self-explanatory.  Once again, it is our _duty_, exactly as it's our
duty to make sure the code's copyright is assigned to the FSF and that
the code follows our coding conventions.  (The latter issues, btw, are
much more significant contributors to "harming ELPA reputation".)

> To try to make this message productive, I have a concrete suggestion: 
> When a package is submitted to GNU ELPA, and it is suggested that the 
> author consider renaming it, it should be made clear at the time that 
> the suggestion is merely that, and that the author's final decision will 
> be accepted.  That would likely help to defuse any feelings of pressure 
> that might be felt as the discussion proceeds (and perhaps even make the 
> author more receptive to suggestions).

Here's the text I posted in this particular case:

  I wonder if you could come up with a name that tells something about
  the package's purpose.  "plz-see" tells me "please see", and I don't
  see any relation to HTTP, REST, pretty-printing, or popup buffers.

Please tell me how is this anything but "a mere suggestion".

P.S. I took the liberty of removing addressees from the CC list and
leaving on the mailing list, as I don't see the need to bother people
personally, especially since all or almost all of them read this list
anyway.