From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Daniel Radetsky Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: My resignation from Emacs development Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:17:06 -0800 Message-ID: References: <169c6564-4722-4338-a049-5f8f3ce69394@alphapapa.net> <02970060-167c-4da1-8e6e-e94fbee8bdc0@alphapapa.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="30103"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Adam Porter Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Nov 27 10:18:37 2024 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 1tGEBw-0007fE-Cy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 10:18:36 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tGEAg-0004Ov-6d; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:17:18 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tGEAb-00045L-L1 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:17:13 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-pg1-x52b.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tGEAY-0004nn-TE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 04:17:12 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-pg1-x52b.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7fbd76941ccso3241301a12.2 for ; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:17:10 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1732699029; x=1733303829; darn=gnu.org; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=pMx1YFS+IKwPJ0stO+GHzlbeXlGr33ypgIDmx6tb3ck=; b=P/cqnOp5aExYZzUGDqyoDwe3l/kIyxuXaOBxU2anHToj+6IlC9QUdQwD+76asJdza8 oMcGCbZluM+Nmm2K7wWmHeXt3hg/zh4JLhfq/obWDc6yuqgcbzDFbR/xDNtGr6aq/MCw iaGepfKSUNPolkHu/eCpkEMXPdEXUT3+q/tP7/hemDQwDrbghpyuZEjVIBz9SPtRWcsK RuSmO6/1L2OeC5HEDzjc3koNWAbczQQeZjo/lxErwgWDk8cEGrRpUEtsYUMQVVQWK93u 9jvUzyc7wSVaKjrDsqW7F4Xw/BOXAiVGVXlSLtFhAYoa5Xfp1XDE3x434sxKbOBZhnqi E1Fg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1732699029; x=1733303829; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=pMx1YFS+IKwPJ0stO+GHzlbeXlGr33ypgIDmx6tb3ck=; b=cjQt61ZS94GvWev1Jj5iffK1/Gb3sAbdYBF59Uu2PZveZ8wKylS2uAKJwkt/viNt48 emCxGRj+4CgE5FgMeQ50cW8shgPAwY6plyNTipNV4lOXebd7C63lKQbUGK+uPISKzXzF XJ7eUxfu2g5uegno7g+3y/ebu2Ga/A8zKXtTqusXkK/NLk4uKZ6f23MKwDv8nCzEysD+ lz/NMK+pc/niLw5wmMqLwswtLxXFnpYNZQYcMuHypNUefQ+4N8VUUuGYyHbeJx0pgRsr oR3VcOPONzT1H+jYTouZ4scAQJfCBvzzxwBn/cvVpDeS9S6e3zbvVfFEnMvhvSS7XFWg sS+Q== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCVJ9JOt3S/VrqBpV6zwfYGy9+BWn4eEcONAWF/zsFqZu3TbXmRzjC0nqHCVrYePYxuu6wiCvq9L9LNSlQ==@gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yz+Dam5D6Jkm9+yUzEzSD0zQK0hV73371Kk5Us424kdOJGl7bqt EpDrGgkimrowmVTgSfLDqrC8oodOQFY6dQ3EmWT315y64UEa0SjPMbJAug== X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncu0IUg1EBh8MtkvY4XxHB/9jDpV81K5sbb6FooqtEteJH6Xk8795IEMfhORLm/ RROZ2+pQKnlC/Z7TU3Tm5Im8uJPQ7sQvfByhFkhpX0/wn10l/gVIhIr/yZ7+KQGrKSoxUf9Np1B ZdCxb/wUY4p+W+Ctz4uR08SMbEb4abAuawy4ukanu5Kp8jBD2vGmVQ1UGjzp79XTEIfHl89x3/2 cm2d3S0Wz/+m+n+NfHyj95ct7ZE4lgIZl+fsPerNR4= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IFoBQ7eRW0r5nbNfPA2O5XmlbcCNNP0kKttrzGVnB+RLtYCyCJwUGof6e2A3G8QCtAmE0b1+w== X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:3910:b0:2ea:819e:9140 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ee097c5a15mr3637318a91.24.1732699029069; Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:17:09 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from flap ([2601:645:8a81:69c0:11a4:3198:90ad:2957]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 98e67ed59e1d1-2ee0fad041csm1000417a91.34.2024.11.27.01.17.08 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 27 Nov 2024 01:17:08 -0800 (PST) Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <02970060-167c-4da1-8e6e-e94fbee8bdc0@alphapapa.net> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2607:f8b0:4864:20::52b; envelope-from=dradetsky@gmail.com; helo=mail-pg1-x52b.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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: 2.1.29 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-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:325744 Archived-At: On Tue, Nov 26, 2024 at 08:06:53PM -0600, Adam Porter wrote: > 1. As has been clearly stated, Stefan is not in charge of this project--the > maintainers are. Any change made by anyone, including Stefan, only persists > with their approval. > > So to blame Stefan is to imply a responsibility he does not bear, which is > unfair and wrong. I'm not sure that's necessarily true; if Stefan is making a positive decision and the other maintainers are merely acquiescing, then blaming Stefan on the grounds that he's the driving force behind the decision isn't totally unreasonable. But it's aside the point: Whether or not its right to blame Stefan, it seems that Alan _does_ blame Stefan, and this is useful information for anyone who seeks to reconcile the parties or improve future decisionmaking. When you tell Alan he's unfair and wrong to blame Stefan, you encourage him and others in the future to just shut up and not air their greivances. This might reduce on-list drama, but I don't think it will convince the Alans of the world to change his perspective or not leave the project. At best it will cause them to leave more quietly, which I don't think is what anyone wants. Or more likely, as in this case, it won't even do that. > 3. As has been admitted by Alan himself, he made a relevant change without > discussing it first, and one that apparently forced the hand of the > maintainers to deal with. That would seem to imply his own having committed > the same kind of misdeed which he accuses Stefan of committing. I don't think you get what's going on here. This isn't a debate you can win. I mean, you can win it, but you don't get anything for winning. So this kind of Tu Quoquery isn't of any use even if it was apposite. And as it happens, I don't think it is; it's not just a question of whether a similar act was committed, but whether it was committed in circumstances in which it produced a similar amount of harm. Whether or not Alan's previous action was also a violation of the hypothetical rule, it demonstrably did not make anyone angry enough to resign the project. Maybe such an accusation might shame the original speaker into dropping his objection on the grounds that none are without sin or something, but it doesn't do anything to redress his injury. And as it doesn't seem to be shaming Alan into silence, I'd let this point go. > You seem to imply that this information has only now been revealed. No, only that I only now became aware of it. > Alan's feelings about and reaction to these technical issues are Alan's > concern. They're also our concern if we want him to continue with the project. Your line of reasoning seems to be bending in the direction of "if he can't control his feelings about these issues, we don't need him on the project." If that is your position, you should be explicit. But I think it's a silly position. > Disagreements about how to > manage a project like this are common, and they needn't always be made > public--especially, they should not be in the form of public character > assassination and ritual defamation. People should ideally not get angry enough to say mean things about other people in the course of a project, but sometimes they do. I don't know about you, but I didn't take anything Alan said about Stefan particularly seriously. As in, as far as the concrete accusations, I barely took them in. The overwhelming issue for me was: some member of the project is extremely unhappy and wants to leave. Can this be salvaged? So I don't see any need to reprimand Alan for "character assassination" insofar as he didn't even come close to successfully assassinating Stefan's character for me. Maybe I'm weird for being able to reserve judgment on Stefan for this, I don't know. > I don't think that any project ought to govern itself by acceding to "my way > or the highway" demands--what could be more unhealthy. I don't know; what is your way? The point is that it's not a question of bowing or not bowing to arguably-unreasonable demands. That's just not the right way to think about this. Instead: everyone involved has the right to negotiate for their position, and it's the job of project leadership to decide if they're getting a good deal or not. If Alan decides that this particular point is a my-way-or-the-highway situation for him, that's fine, he's entitled to feel that way. We can then think it over and then say very politely "Ultimately we decided to go with 'highway'. Thank you very much for all your help in the past." What we've done here is not to "stand up to his unreasonable demands" or "refuse to let him walk over us" or any such silly framing of the issue. Instead we decided the best way to get what we want, which was to reject his deal. Make sense? > All of that is fine, though Alan's decision is regrettable. What isn't fine > is to misplace blame on Stefan, for a decision that the maintainers > themselves support, and one that no one is fully satisfied with. Again, I don't see why this is all that important... > social [problems] can be forgiven--if the parties are > willing. Except insofar as, in my opinion, every time you say "You should not misplace blame on Stefan" it gets slightly harder to hear the part where you say "If you decide to come back, all is forgiven." Right now, I wouldn't bother saying the first thing _at all_. > But each one must decide for himself. And once a participant has made his > decision, for the good of the project and its participants, he ought to stop > publicly litigating it. To be fair, he's publicly litigating it because, in addition to trying to talk him down, people are also challenging him on it. I could just as well say that once he's made his decision, for the good of the project people should stop inviting him to litigate it. But I know that's unreasonable. Inevitably, people are going to talk about this because that's what people do. Those big brains aren't just for show. > And any outside participants who feel a duty to offer their input ought to > do so with the utmost care, and only after fully informing themselves of the > context and all parties' views, lest they only throw fuel on the fire. Respectfully, I feel like your comments pose a greater risk of fueling the fire than mine do. It doesn't seem to me like you're keeping your eye on the not-fueling-the-fire bit with sufficient assiduity. You have (understandable) opinions about proper conduct and respect for reputations, and you're putting them forward at a time when you might be better served by holding them back for the time being. And I do mean _you_ might be better served, in the sense that you personally might thereby acquire a slightly better emacs. --dmr