From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: John Wiegley Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: New maintainer Date: Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:12:42 -0700 Organization: New Artisans LLC Message-ID: References: <5610207A.2000300@harpegolden.net> <83h9m73hkd.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443899587 25449 80.91.229.3 (3 Oct 2015 19:13:07 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 19:13:07 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sat Oct 03 21:12:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSEn-0003ka-Dk for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 21:12:53 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:39729 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSEm-0007Pv-RV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:12:52 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58154) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSEi-0007NW-QE for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:12:49 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSEf-0007Q4-K3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:12:48 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-pa0-x230.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230]:33364) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSEf-0007Py-Di for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 15:12:45 -0400 Original-Received: by pacex6 with SMTP id ex6so136645257pac.0 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:12:45 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=sender:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:date:organization:message-id :references:user-agent:mail-followup-to:mime-version:content-type; bh=wAluOCKWpKZoIJQBPGhCh3UvsUmiLTQs+iYLl8zKe8M=; b=lfRcOkImtnyncDxwu9McyccDEwE8u2H6U3hXNmcBvPnlN+ZjSCCTNBEAx3xCqGzgZi yjPoQnWbFvmVk4+AwtqRb5IVpnfvblvTBuyGrGYeZ5JdaIAoN2doT7lNU4TIT89ktlxh oti97ak79WNQuY4Hpa4n6D2SQ7tHEt/ryKkUEZ19sz1+jFza/1prOQ6ufwUJiAFbYQJO HQ2T8yfVRQm3mvPuI+O7+B5VhuKzpVBYe7i19OJ7/VaqX0z2GqaGCX/QfbYMSrqwI3Ju dUVoXpv1bFWcNEkk8Shi2CPQ0VFJlZSbB0TNm99a2kjIrZytNugYbctGzB0Qbs38kZCp nAPw== X-Received: by 10.66.144.135 with SMTP id sm7mr28959997pab.106.1443899564889; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:12:44 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from Vulcan.local (76-234-68-79.lightspeed.frokca.sbcglobal.net. [76.234.68.79]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id xd10sm18865340pab.25.2015.10.03.12.12.43 for (version=TLSv1 cipher=RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:12:43 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by Vulcan.local (Postfix, from userid 501) id 16243F029956; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:12:43 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: (John Wiegley's message of "Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:08:21 -0700") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.5 (darwin) Mail-Followup-To: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2607:f8b0:400e:c03::230 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:190811 Archived-At: >>>>> John Wiegley writes: > It's the only way to break a tie if there is vehement difference of opinion. > I didn't say it was the only way to make decisions. There's another reason not to use a Cabal-of-3, though, Eli: it would mean always waiting until you could consult with the other 2 before making pronouncements about direction on the mailing list. Otherwise, you risk the possibility of deciding something that the other two don't agree with. This would add unnecessary inertia to the process, in my opinion. I say this having participated in group-driven scenarios before. It does slow things down, since you have to communicate first with the group (either on or off list), and then with the community. And there's the matter of presenting a united front, being clear on what is personal opinion and what is the opinion of the group, etc. John