From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Christopher Dimech Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: My resignation from Emacs development Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:06:10 +0100 Message-ID: References: <86o726mlup.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="409"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: rms@gnu.org, stefankangas@gmail.com, acm@muc.de, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Nov 23 12:25:22 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 1tEoGQ-000ASc-3J for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:25:22 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tEoFY-0001XQ-25; Sat, 23 Nov 2024 06:24:28 -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 1tEny7-0008UT-HT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Nov 2024 06:06:28 -0500 Original-Received: from mout.gmx.net ([212.227.15.15]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tEny5-0005Uw-JH; Sat, 23 Nov 2024 06:06:27 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmx.com; s=s31663417; t=1732359970; x=1732964770; i=dimech@gmx.com; bh=Nh3VlCCzWBoyGznD+C5NF5dSFCy9zFX5d/0L5YCh+Ao=; h=X-UI-Sender-Class:MIME-Version:Message-ID:From:To:Cc:Subject: Content-Type:Date:In-Reply-To:References: Content-Transfer-Encoding:cc:content-transfer-encoding: content-type:date:from:message-id:mime-version:reply-to:subject: to; b=eGRuy/UVoJZLxJ1/ny6FIGuTFaG9b6J/N2S1w0QaileVqC8eH/cT09YDp4LxC28K uW5cAHnapLWK203EYVArM3Cm/bQdCiDPD4KqWFrSm3CMFNmiEmFIAJS1Dlasv8NXa 8NdW5G5NNXBqnqrMeXtiSUrIg0Zjy+P16ft9OObaxobHHdl7rbtY8y1dtZ04RYcFE E7vabi2JetmL5e9yTgAmX4MrqNL3EAZ21igouyBfOBRCURip5UQICQ6wxEsBoUe2f V/f/DM5uUgzdv+c9q0qUHzS1qu/gELqm1DGoHj34Im2Vda5WIIV7pIHGLUtv/K3ZN cyaJBHBKK9li8d/8mw== X-UI-Sender-Class: 724b4f7f-cbec-4199-ad4e-598c01a50d3a Original-Received: from [77.71.252.27] ([77.71.252.27]) by web-mail.gmx.net (3c-app-mailcom-bs05.server.lan [172.19.170.173]) (via HTTP); Sat, 23 Nov 2024 12:06:10 +0100 Importance: normal Sensitivity: Normal In-Reply-To: <86o726mlup.fsf@gnu.org> X-UI-Message-Type: mail X-Priority: 3 X-Provags-ID: V03:K1:Aa0qmmiSua54t/F67k9Qn9bXRDAr/kUTcWnAYumGtFx5xrKN/XcZPKABe7qSxj+0so+gd vQNQCPc/H1dHSWzgvTAA7G1ZVQzJPu3cUnfJ8uEJn3J8H121wLgwB03gk/IpJUx15XT6EDvwbItL 8cm31XK8d+mc5A22/qMomrCmkidlR+XycWFMsDPdvUMa7ft74dBM6jqKTj+Jvk5F+4f0hK3GWzbU 6tPGSz1eNHibzSWEZr0NGuq/w/4WKbEjIADhQkYo4/EzD1Z21a95Io0cSCoKhlfvMCnfZ/PCnuQq Iw= UI-OutboundReport: notjunk:1;M01:P0:jT9g9RWBpZA=;mj5djd3Trg8ERbqJsbATe1Ch37W uuH/J6ZEJ7T2sRKRA20p/FV0jYGbzdxwqey1tz0H/op5F/bt8ELPmel0yqoV6nLHEtAqnReJg HJLIZShXhiOh85+K51BbQigexlTnv8w0OmEvayOkVCgwjipPL5ISQ8FfNckxWw9htMUu3dIZR kdGBUkfZWDEmdZDh+EbzCFg3e91uPI61xsmx8/Jz/ui8c1MZGZkYlGAS6l4CsYF/DY+Opzyq1 cMoA9F5eANyl6JvUBpEPqfFRtaHo56YoPhmmRVkC1L6iLaBTTVBS+siDoNI2eKeR5G0NQPV7u vFYWUmfHI1ikrLx3OPmkW199hBHiBHRi66z/50/xDZ+gtj12fJPQyfWJkNaykcYWScn8yf948 KO3yxExu20Q7OTGkCRDiQ8Psyjk+eYN6cnBsq7VjtaBydI8tVEC95BwOeaRLFIQ71dQO5FIn/ XPEf4tBqEM3sbmAevhGbLgI6+YgfTLXWnlvKx2JdhAyIa3ER0Bk3n3KfiimVs1cNhaE2JdnRO FktsMEo8mHSQgUgoQR4KUDqOGjaaLRGVadkajvK99T+3T9vg42MLnbR5rriL5ZNKYyaBG6GRN 1geEcFShwsruy09W6fz8HmW7wnleF2LHU+T82gWqEnQgycuqMPnG1EzsEfoU++J2NA/OwYpbM 7JOJSYS6kD/X0zu2fSy2a3Qj+oZmUbXkemWkjZk8ig== Received-SPF: pass client-ip=212.227.15.15; envelope-from=dimech@gmx.com; helo=mout.gmx.net X-Spam_score_int: -17 X-Spam_score: -1.8 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.8 / 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, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 06:24:26 -0500 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:325614 Archived-At: > Sent: Saturday, November 23, 2024 at 7:48 PM > From: "Eli Zaretskii" > To: rms@gnu=2Eorg > Cc: stefankangas@gmail=2Ecom, acm@muc=2Ede, emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg > Subject: Re: My resignation from Emacs development > > > From: Richard Stallman > > Cc: acm@muc=2Ede, emacs-devel@gnu=2Eorg > > Date: Sat, 23 Nov 2024 01:10:42 -0500 > >=20 > > > I have to agree with Eli=2E Although it would, in hindsight, cert= ainly > > > have been better to discuss these particular changes in more detai= l in > > > advance, > >=20 > > I too have complained that major changes were not being discussed in t= he > > way that they call for=2E >=20 > My impression is that complaints about "changes installed without > being discussed" assume that discussing them would have stopped them > from being installed=2E When there's a chance that this is the case, > according to the best judgment of the maintainers, we insist on > discussions (at least I do) as prerequisite for accepting the changes=2E > There are enough changes which were rejected this way=2E >=20 > However, as I've written elsewhere in this thread, Emacs maintainers > are just stewards=2E They don't "own" the project, and cannot dictate > their preferences when some change is widely favored by the community, > not without good reasons, which are considered "good enough" by the > community=2E So when we feel that a change will be widely supported, > regardless of discussions, we see no reason to delay its installation=2E > (Of course, code review and various minor issues like proper > documentation etc=2E are still in effect, and many times require > re-submission of patches before they are installed=2E) I challenge the notion that Emacs maintainers act solely as stewards=2E The term implies neutrality, but maintainers inherently influence the project's trajectory=2E Maintainers have a fiduciary duty to both the project's longevity and its contributors' collective vision=2E Thus the robustness of the project and the ease of improvements are important=2E > > I think this incident shows that we need to make a rule to ensure > > they get discused properly=2E Some ideas occur to me, which could for= m > > a part of this=2E > >=20 > > Here's one possible approach that occurs to me=2E > > It's not the only approach that could be good=2E > >=20 > > * A new feature must be brought up on emacs-devel with a clear descrip= tion=2E > >=20 > > * If anyone on the list says, "This feature calls for careful discussi= on," > > then maintainers must respond saying, "We will now have 14 days for di= scussion > > of this feature=2E" > >=20 > > * 14 later, a maintainer can post, "We have had 14 days of discussion = for > > the feature XyZ=2E Here's how the plan stands now=2E Does anyone cal= l for further > > discussion?" > >=20 > > * If anyone on the list says, "This feature calls for further > > discussion," then maintainers must respond saying, "We will now have 7 > > days for further discussion of this feature=2E" > >=20 > > * 7 days later, the maintainers can install the feature=2E >=20 > We already have those rules, albeit not formally=2E But rules are not > always followed to the letter in a community such as ours, and we have > no real means of enforcing them=2E (Extreme examples of disregard for > those rules cause radical measures like public harsh reprimands of the > offenders, and reverting of the offending changes, but that is a > doomsday weapon that must be employed extremely sparingly=2E And we > have nothing else except telling people a-posteriori they should have > known better=2E) >=20 > I object to codifying such rules, for two reasons: >=20 > =2E Rules that force people to behave decently and respectfully to > others send a message that people are not trusted to do it > otherwise, which, to me, smells of totalitarian societies and > by-default incrimination of people we know nothing about=2E We have > Gnu Kind Communication Guidelines where other projects have the > notorious Codes of Conduct, for this very reason=2E > =2E If such rules are broken, we have no real power to do anything=2E > IOW, the "or else" clause of any such rule is basically empty=2E > The only measure we have is to take away their write access, which > is again a doomsday weapon, and will certainly avert contributors > if applied when, say, some change was installed without waiting > for 14 days=2E They also impose significant logistical burdens on maintainers, particularly if enforcement becomes a regular necessity or must happen at inopportune times=2E Enforcing rules consistently and addressing violations, especially during critical project milestones or personal time constraints, is unsustainable=2E Ultimately, the sustainability of enforcement must align with the maintainers' capacity, > Beyond the above, I personally have no will to enforce such rules, and > if the decision is to introduce them, someone else will have to do > that, because I will not=2E It is against my vision of how such > communities should be led, and no one can ask me to do this job > against my principles and my best judgment=2E Let's put aside competing visions and principles and prioritize practical judgment=2E The abundance of conflicting ideals has only added complexity=2E It=E2=80=99s time for the maintainers to make a clear decisi= on on this matter, now that the discussion has been fully laid out=2E