From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributors and maintainers Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:22:15 +0300 Message-ID: <83oafse1yg.fsf@gnu.org> References: <83y4exe71v.fsf@gnu.org> <87zizcfzna.fsf@T420.taylan> <20151021.102719.485566340.wl@gnu.org> <871tcoehk2.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87eggofmy2.fsf@T420.taylan> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445437362 24095 80.91.229.3 (21 Oct 2015 14:22:42 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Cc: dak@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1=2FK?= =?utf-8?Q?ammer?=) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 21 16:22:28 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZouHT-0001g9-5a for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 16:22:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:51874 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZouHS-0007r3-Ah for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:22:18 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:50322) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZouHN-0007qk-PJ for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:22:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZouHN-00031T-0Y for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:22:13 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout24.012.net.il ([80.179.55.180]:37564) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZouHJ-00030W-0T; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:22:09 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout24.012.net.il by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NWK00B00Q37UN00@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:15:27 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout24.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NWK00AULQ9RYY10@mtaout24.012.net.il>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:15:27 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87eggofmy2.fsf@T420.taylan> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.180 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192282 Archived-At: > From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kamm= er) > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:03:33 +0200 > Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org >=20 > I have to disagree, and offer an alternative analysis by someone wh= o's > not me and is quite a bit better at social issues than me. >=20 > The usual approach on emacs-devel when dealing with something t= hey > don't like is to come up with random arguments, ignore > counter-arguments, and move goalposts around because getting > convinced by arguments is not something you do on the internet. >=20 > From the glimpse I took, that's roughly what's happening there: > They don't like the idea because gut feeling, so they nitpick > irrelevancies and go off on tangents to support their gut feeli= ng. I don't think things happen like that around here. But the description is so vague and devoid of any specific details that it's easy to misinterpret. I would first and foremost suspect some misunderstanding. After all, for most people here, myself included, English is not their first language, so nuances could sometimes lead to misunderstandings. Can we have the person(s) who came up with thi= s description please speak up and point to specific discussions and specific messages that could lead to such conclusions, and perhaps suggest ways for changing the dynamics here away of that? > How about, *first* of all, the latest version of my ELPA patch gets > applied, so there is an *immediate* benefit to Emacs users. Claimi= ng > that a single line of duplicated code outweighs that would be absur= d. >=20 > After that, emacs-devel can make whatever change they want to the > package. Is that what this is about? that you don't want to make that change yourself, but agree to someone else making it? If so, then I think w= e will gladly provide that service, and there are no more obstacles for admitting the package.