From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Dmitry Gutov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Representation of the Emacs userbase on emacs-devel Date: Fri, 3 Sep 2021 01:39:05 +0300 Message-ID: <9d5a2f83-d564-22e1-0cbd-df760044528f@yandex.ru> 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> <87r1e690n8.fsf_-_@posteo.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="21274"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.13.0 Cc: danflscr@gmail.com, rms@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, eliz@gnu.org, John Yates To: Philip Kaludercic Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Fri Sep 03 00:40:24 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 1mLvNf-0005IG-6L for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Fri, 03 Sep 2021 00:40:23 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35046 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLvNd-0005Jz-CJ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 18:40:21 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:45068) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLvMZ-0004cw-VX for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 18:39:16 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-wr1-x42c.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::42c]:37489) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mLvMU-0008EL-N2; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 18:39:15 -0400 Original-Received: by mail-wr1-x42c.google.com with SMTP id v10so5342044wrd.4; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 15:39:09 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20210112; h=sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=mJaNvIBMWXmd1yf3mDwijzAlyNANfM0BFL97gF5t0nA=; b=YibstMs1zbQ9z3t+/YsNs9TxURJ+UZk3Rw2C73+nMxvd8kPnF2lYqAEiRl1nebqQzX 9VWVGEM9lUVuof2KQVh9CRTN88aqqnQ5CByEWoDPb/NP3LvmGUIYoYlDB1RKQUxg0wx5 0/Io7Hr0MWCJvFU/tZpTmkXXlv0hTN5WQ7uHzmgs9lGtT83Bd3ubjr13ErX+vDGDlVPk u6HXnpYUUlokJ3+Df5zYXDH2vBSrMEjtPsqDunvSmMalUL9V6eudWlhRpQNvrwi/w619 WvcOw25PnHSL3nh925oXfa/VkAu4XsIpvuIjX5BZk/bca2mp0HipJPKUG97AKeG5D2ev 0noQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:sender:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id :date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=mJaNvIBMWXmd1yf3mDwijzAlyNANfM0BFL97gF5t0nA=; b=HEluIWEbbjvrE9qB7pRUpP73XLaECpTcYx5xsjuuWuS6bphbM10QYqYONfrnzTvSOk tNn2lBRGx6uAHIk470myBrTGBiwC2v2PgaDjxs4bKVUSE1eFqGYSLg2nQRz+gSXyuboy 1FD8WkfhNRsjHgnXP6jwBb1fz+sB+3PJLo++HB355bLq8XSH6hVnCzLZJQcliTtDmH3k I9OLqa0exdptldpgWwKqFmOqiHIlgWEelRr//R+iWj9yIQawLp/D9Ria/MpWU1otjyQg JHJp2vuo83Mv+RG1bhVw28yHHsUbKlVJW6mjqwXC188tJbFxejNiKSEUzeeXauY3y9/O L+Mw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531zvpYGn88tjEIBOPOwaDktOcKYmHj/IixjQZXVS/jf+9xbVlfH zjG8DvK3OKUBSy3gZvcVb9AGSxE6Rws= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJziI0aTccEdWXcXWaQX2MxvjQu9lzeRZYjklM443NqWH9FlMP47HQQNUx7znm7h1kw2brkNbQ== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6000:1010:: with SMTP id a16mr576770wrx.70.1630622348393; Thu, 02 Sep 2021 15:39:08 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from [192.168.0.6] ([46.251.119.176]) by smtp.googlemail.com with ESMTPSA id j18sm3162387wrd.56.2021.09.02.15.39.06 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 02 Sep 2021 15:39:07 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87r1e690n8.fsf_-_@posteo.net> Content-Language: en-US Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::42c; envelope-from=raaahh@gmail.com; helo=mail-wr1-x42c.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -36 X-Spam_score: -3.7 X-Spam_bar: --- X-Spam_report: (-3.7 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.249, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.25, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.225, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SPF_HELO_TEMPERROR=0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:273732 Archived-At: On 02.09.2021 23:35, Philip Kaludercic wrote: > But don't they represent other users? Of course they do. But what proportion of users? By the virtue of simply being on this mailing list, we are already skewed toward an older, more conservative crowd. And then we make it a veto power if *some* 5 people from said crowd disapprove. > The fundamental issue underlying > all of this is that different people have different ideas of who is > using Emacs. We cannot say if emacs-devel is representative of the > entire user base or not. One can certainly sense differences when > comparing it to different communities (HN,/r/emacs, /emg/, popular > bloggers, various developer groups, ...), but these all tend to skew > towards Emacs enthusiasts, so they cannot be seen as reliable metric > either. I'm not saying it's easy, but we don't even try. We don't try to make whole-userbase polls (we talked about it a few times over last years, and never went through), we don't make decisions based on polls made by other people (only one exception that comes to mind is Lars' initiative regarding ring-bell-function), and we never make decisions based on what "others" do. Even when it is clear that when all other editors have made a certain technical decision in a different way than we did, decades ago, we stick with it. And I'm not even talking about major disruptive changes like a switch to CUA would be. > I agree that the ability for a handful of users to veto changes can be > annoying, but how harmful it is should be decided on a case-to-case > basis. Do you (or anyone else) have any examples of where one or just a > few people prevented a change from being made that you think would have > been good in your eyes? Every recent discussion about a UI change has been like that. A suggestion is made, arguments added, some people disagree saying it won't jive with their workflow (never mind that Emacs is, in fact, customizable), and that's it. For example, the thread about bindings for undo-only+undo-redo, which would make Emacs friendlier to any user with experience in about any other text editing program out there. Or take indent-tabs-mode, an old pet peeve of mine: https://debbugs.gnu.org/cgi/bugreport.cgi?bug=20322 I can talk about contemporary practice, whole-industry polls, threads with personal opinions anywhere, threads with people expressing confusion about the current default behavior... but a few people say a change will be inconvenient -- and it moves nowhere.