From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1?= =?utf-8?Q?=2FKammer?=) Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributors and maintainers Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:46:04 +0200 Message-ID: <87io60dsir.fsf@T420.taylan> References: <87si59wj42.fsf@T420.taylan> <877fmjj9p6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zizfm2dq.fsf@T420.taylan> <871tcr7yvq.fsf@fastmail.com> <87mvvfm0bd.fsf@T420.taylan> <56250803.5080601@cs.ucla.edu> <87a8ren5ys.fsf@T420.taylan> <56259BB1.3070908@cs.ucla.edu> <878u6ykmvt.fsf@T420.taylan> <87h9llvo98.fsf@members.fsf.org> <5626622A.3090707@yandex.ru> <87zizdijbp.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267302.7050606@yandex.ru> <87io61igyu.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267CDF.6010201@yandex.ru> <87wpuhh15s.fsf@T420.taylan> <562683B9.1060305@yandex.ru> <83y4exe71v.fsf@gnu.org> <87zizcfzna.fsf@T420.taylan> 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 1445449597 19021 80.91.229.3 (21 Oct 2015 17:46:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 17:46:37 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 21 19:46:36 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 1ZoxSo-0007q1-4N for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:46:14 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:53114 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoxSn-0002ZC-H6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:46:13 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40774) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoxSi-0002Vt-GV for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:46:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoxSg-00037C-Vu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:46:08 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wi0-x22d.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d]:38641) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZoxSg-00036l-Nd for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 13:46:06 -0400 Original-Received: by wicll6 with SMTP id ll6so85646818wic.1 for ; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:46:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=from:to:subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:user-agent :mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=llq8Vdpg4f+RipXO2qh9pQO+4JwP1KgWBwiUBEa56+c=; b=i/ECDmLuAQdt1WkdGpPPCCjtjO6T2LjpwNCfs/pZIw0YmOwzV6H0HeuUVX53P6qqRI GyLrYmbsuSZQa83QD7kzyAlDBDvt46IvUL8uyYrm0kHQJCvJNp2iKEX82sh04gHlJzP6 VJFn5cZ2jx30q9vZQPSAJsDOc2Twenenyjvfw8ajoUVesDCudSQvByFUTPyhIDMmmbVb C+PrODItQGUE8kWKmn6Ebi6mJBY357uHp1cNQpsL/HTj/mFKK6/3Z0utWIfaE+YDlgiG Yllqm96vcKSD7CgT/YrlbUD/7jqt1PnhuumNj3GiKxdJNesB+pYI6Svr/VOz/byMeEz3 GCAQ== X-Received: by 10.194.52.6 with SMTP id p6mr13761248wjo.119.1445449566172; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:46:06 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from T420.taylan ([2a02:908:c32:4740:221:ccff:fe66:68f0]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id p10sm11741850wjx.36.2015.10.21.10.46.04 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:46:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:05:46 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:400c:c05::22d 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:192306 Archived-At: "John Wiegley" writes: >>>>>> Taylan Ulrich "Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kammer" w= rites: > >> The lack of respect I'm receiving is *not* of the kind where someone is >> being actively nasty, insulting, etc. It's a kind where a person's very >> voice is being denied, not even countered. That's pretty grave. > > Taylan, I don't understand. Looking at emacs-devel and the bug tracker, I= see > that many people have responded to you. Here are the reply counts: > > 26 Eli Zaretskii > 9 Paul Eggert > 9 Dmitry Gutov > 7 Random832 > 3 Michael Albinu > 3 John Wiegley > 3 David Kastrup > 3 Artur Malabarb > 1 Stephen J. Tur > 1 Nicolas Richar > 1 Daniel Colasci > > Eli has taken the time to write back to you 26 times! This doesn't even c= ount > the sub-threads where we discuss meta issues not directly related to your > issue. > > Can you share with me what your real concern is? Do you worry that Emacs = is > not secure enough? Is their an active threat of some kind in your environ= ment? > Perhaps there's something about your use case we're not seeing, that would > explain the greater importance of this issue to you. John, I'm afraid you're looking at things too superficially. I honestly don't remember a single response that even seemed to acknowledge the concern I've explained multiple times in detail, except for responses by Random832. Having responded at all is not proof of having addressed the concerns; rather most of those responses were diverting away the topic while ignoring my actual concern. Straight out remaining silent would not have irritated me nearly as much, if at all. One usually can't draw any clear conclusions from silence. But being rapidly responded to, each time with a different diversion from the main concern, is eventually very agitating. > We've been living with the current shell-quote-argument for literally > *decades*, which might explain why we're not instantly ready to make chan= ges > -- even though Eli has made a change to the docstring at your request. How > does that constitute "no response"? I am confused. It made a change that was neither asked for (by me at least), nor addressed my concern. Think about how irritating it must be to spend a lot of effort to explain a concern, *also* provide a patch which solves that concern, and then have the maintainer reject your patch and instead apply one of their own which *doesn't* address your concern. > Also, it does not help to reiterate how clear and cogent your arguments h= ave > been. Until we both agree, "clarity" and "cogency" have not been achieved. > These attributes must exist *between* disputants; they cannot be determin= ed by > one side alone. We have all been working to achieve clarity, but I fear t= his > has been misunderstood as a stubborn rejection of your ideas. The problem is that the concern was not even acknowledged, let alone being shown the courtesy to be openly disagreed with. And all the while reiterating my main concern that remained unaddressed, I *did* try to address many of the counter-concerns that were raised, although in the grand scheme of things they only served to divert attention away from my concern. All of this may not be easy to see to an outside observer of the topic. Of course, I know what my main concern is very well, but if the thread contains an equal or greater number of mails talking about other concerns than mine, then to an outside observer my concern will simply become less visible, and appear like any of the arbitrary concerns that were raised and discussed, whichever of them ultimately addressed... All that might make it very hard to understand why such a level of irritation would happen in first place, which is why I'm trying to take a sort of empirical approach to the problem, which is to enumerate the mails in which I explain the same concern, and ask for mails in which that concern is clearly acknowledged, and responded to with explicit disagreement or a solution; anything but bringing up a "related" topic. If there is a failure to find such mails in the discussion, despite the spurious amount of mails reiterating the main concern, I hope that's a clear, somewhat empiric indication of the social problem. I wish we had a professional psychologist or sociologist as part of the maintainer team. :-) Taylan