From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Jean Louis Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: "Open records", "good government principles", "corporate culture" Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2020 10:27:07 +0300 Message-ID: References: <20201209125516.lenqswi7fhiscbr2@E15-2016.optimum.net> <20201210063923.vkja5dwddloiu4sw@E15-2016.optimum.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="24479"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Mutt/2.0 (3d08634) (2020-11-07) Cc: Richard Stallman , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Boruch Baum Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 10 09:37:41 2020 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 1knHSG-0006If-Sb for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 09:37:40 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:33058 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHSF-0004xq-TS for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:37:39 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:34942) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHNU-0008IB-Tp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:32:44 -0500 Original-Received: from stw1.rcdrun.com ([217.170.207.13]:46055) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1knHNS-0007Ju-Uj; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 03:32:44 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost ([::ffff:41.202.241.31]) (AUTH: PLAIN securesender, TLS: TLS1.2,256bits,ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384) by stw1.rcdrun.com with ESMTPSA id 000000000001E00D.000000005FD1DD28.00001301; Thu, 10 Dec 2020 01:32:40 -0700 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20201210063923.vkja5dwddloiu4sw@E15-2016.optimum.net> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=217.170.207.13; envelope-from=bugs@gnu.support; helo=stw1.rcdrun.com X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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:260638 Archived-At: * Boruch Baum [2020-12-10 09:41]: > From the recent thread "non-gnu elpa issue tracking" > > On 2020-12-09 23:35, Richard Stallman wrote: > > > 2) The acceptance or candidacy process for each package should be > > > documented in some discrete method. > > > > Whether to have a certain package in NonGNU ELPA could be a touchy > > question, in some borderline cases. Stating the reasons could perhaps > > hurt feelings, or lead to arguments. So it is best not to do that. > > We will add a package or we won't. I could understand that point in different way then you got it. I think no need for offense here. It is trivial to make one's own ELPA, and I consider doing so for the sake of simplicity and re-using configurations in a speedy manner without confusing my team members. When I would be doing that I could keep the private ELPA on Internet even make it available to others, but I would not need to explain nothing. If I would explain it, it would cause people to comment back and argue about my decisions. For person like me such discussions are of no significance but for larger group of developers they may become. Look at the Github, when somebody wish to fork a package, they just click and do. Finished there. No discussion, nothing. i do not see any bad intentions there. Those repositories are not comparable and non-GNU ELPA has different purposes then some general package repositories. I see the purpose in enhancement of the default Emacs. Packages are not part of Emacs but become available in the same free software spirit by default. Emacs maintainers due to its experience and analytical capabilities may then decide what would package would be useful to enhance Emacs by including it in non-GNU ELPA as well. Now imagine 500 discussions for 500 packages not included x 5 comments minimum. Software authors may propose package to be included in GNU ELPA just as usual. All those are my personal opinions. I see nothing wrong. > Implicit in the paragraph, I read: > > 4) Fear of accountability; Quite contrary, I see the sense to accountability and sense to responsibility towards us as users and future users. We have just been discussing packages that are public domain but not CC0. Obviously such public domain packages are not acceptable. If package is useful developers can still ask the author to re-license it at least to CC0 license. The care to include or not include package that is in other jurisdiction but US probably proprietary is transparent here on the mailing list, and also shows accountability. As it is general rule to include GPL compatible software, that rule alone is transparent and made public and shows accountability. > 5) Insecurity and feelings of weakness; For this I have no idea, as I cannot see your viewpoint. I wish I could. > 6) Unwilling to establish boundaries; For that I see it quite contrary, there are free software boundaries, aren't they? > 7) Passive aggression; Sorry, I cannot see that, it is harder for me to get into that viewpoint. > However, for any professional environment in either the public or > private sector (of the "developed Western secular" world)... Should I > care? I'm an outsider to the emacs/GNU/FSF development team, but when I > read that paragraph, many frustrating interactions that I've had with > the several of the emacs team made a lot more sense. But let us look at purposes. What is good is that we help each other. I think it is great. Sometimes in discussing things it can be frustrating. But one has to look at intentions of both parties as those intentions are almost always good, and intention is to help each other. My experience is that, to me several major bugs have been solved that enabled me to use Emacs to speed up my management. I look at those assistances as valuable. It is impossible for every human interaction to result positively for all parties. Otherwise they would not be discussing it. Jean