Re: My resignation from Emacs development

[Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>]

Christopher,

On 11/26/24 13:51, Christopher Dimech wrote:
> In the matter of blaming maintainers for decisions - whether directly or
> indirectly - the question of whether maintainers should be allowed to
> break their own rules is critical.  A compelling case exists that they
> should.  Strict adherence to lengthy review periods or
> consensus-building processes is often impractical, especially in
> situations where only maintainers possess the necessary expertise to
> advance the program.
> 
> Maintainers breaking their own rules represents a pragmatic approach,
> prioritizing progress and functionality over rigid adherence to dogmatic
> processes. This flexibility ensures that the project continues to evolve
> and adapt to its challenges.

You seem to imply that some kind of rule-breaking has happened.  I don't 
think this is so--unless the rule were "No one may make any change 
unless everyone agrees to it."  The technical matters in question have 
been thoroughly discussed.  A change was made.  The maintainers support 
it (in absence of a better solution, which they have not found).  One 
contributor refuses to tolerate it--regrettable, but solely his decision 
to make.  There's little else--factually--to say.

> That said, while maintainers must retain the ability to make such 
> decisions - even if they sometimes result in dissent or the
> departure of contributors - there is a clear responsibility to avoid
> fostering a culture of arbitrary rule-breaking.  Transparency,
> accountability, and judicious use of this authority are essential to
> maintain the integrity of the program, especially in a collaborative
> environment heavily reliant on contributor involvement.
You seem to imply some kind of secrecy is involved.  Everything I see 
indicates the opposite: lengthy, public discussions, long-considered but 
finally needed decisions, and further lengthy, public discussions (with 
unfairly implied chastisement of the maintainers for implied secrecy). 
One could hardly find a more transparently run project.

You even mention integrity, as if to suggest that the maintainers' is in 
question.  Please be careful that your words don't imply criticism where 
none is deserved.

--Adam