>
> > I believe you it is, I was asking you to *try* to find another
> > interpretation. Since you don't want to do that
>
> Can we please assume that each one of us reads the other's messages
> attentively, and tries to understand and interpret it in good faith?
>

You are correct. Sorry.


> "For most users of dash.el and s.el, they will be surprised to see
> > dash.el accepted in ELPA but not s.el because they might feel these
> > packages are very similar in nature (provide high-order programming
> > discoverable functions to Emacs). To them it might look inconsistant
> > and they might wrongly assume emacs-devel is driven by arbitrary
> > decisions when it comes to accepting what goes into ELPA. Without a
> > good communication on why s.el is refused but dash.el is not, many
> > people could deduce that ELPA is a dead end and that only MELPA is the
> > sane route, further distancing ELPA from "where the real development
> > of emacs packages happens"".
>
> How is consistency relevant here?  They are 2 different packages
> targeting different domains.  Each one of them should be assessed
> separately and on its own merit.  Thus, I see no reason for people to
> be surprised that two different packages are handled differently.
> (And the discussion is not yet over, so what will be the conclusion is
> so far anyone's guess.)
>

Fair point. I'm probably not very objective as I am the one who asked
magnars for help and I'd hate to tell him that it was all "for nothing".

>