From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: [External] : Re: Concern about new binding. Date: Wed, 03 Feb 2021 07:36:11 +0200 Message-ID: <4F87E2EB-B8B7-48C8-AD9E-FE39365742CA@gnu.org> References: <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo.ref@Ergus> <20210202134950.vybbpf3iewbymfjo@Ergus> <87zh0mmr54.fsf@gmail.com> <87tuqunw6q.fsf@telefonica.net> <835z3a5miu.fsf@gnu.org> <87lfc6nvlt.fsf@telefonica.net> <8335ye5lhj.fsf@gnu.org> <83y2g54yd0.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="40764"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android Cc: "ofv@wanadoo.es" , "emacs-devel@gnu.org" To: Drew Adams Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Wed Feb 03 06:37:02 2021 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 1l7Aqb-000ASh-MV for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 06:37:01 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59560 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Aqa-00059G-Ni for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:37:00 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:42548) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Aps-0004hS-P3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:36:16 -0500 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]:35728) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Aps-0000ew-5g; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:36:16 -0500 Original-Received: from [2a02:14f:80:8d61::1] (port=45242) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:128) (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1l7Apq-0007HQ-Sl; Wed, 03 Feb 2021 00:36:15 -0500 In-Reply-To: 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:263771 Archived-At: On February 3, 2021 6:44:01 AM GMT+02:00, Drew Adams wrote: >=20 > > > > Well, then maybe someone will volunteer to do this job for you > and > > > > others, and call people's attention to discussions on the bug > list > > > > that might interest you and others=2E > > > > > > This seems like a cop-out, to me=2E > >=20 > > The Emacs developers are volunteers doing this job on their own free > > time and as much as their resources allow=2E When there's something > the > > community would like to be done that the developers cannot afford > > doing, it is customary to call for volunteers to fill that niche=2E > > That's the spirit in Free Software projects developed by volunteers, > > and there's nothing wrong with that, certainly not something that > > deserves derogatory remarks such as the one above=2E >=20 > You quoted out of context and went off on something else=2E >=20 > My point was that, instead of relying on _anyone_ > doing the suggested new job, it should be everyone's > job in a bug-thread to move a discussion to emacs-devel > if it ranges beyond the bug/improvement in question (and > if it's to be continued at all), and especially if it > seems to be leading toward a choice of whether to make > wider changes=2E IME, there's no "we" in volunteer based Free Software projects such as thi= s one=2E Saying "we should do this-and-that" or "this-and-that should be e= veryone's job" has only one consequence: that no one will do it=2E The onl= y way it could work is to interpret "we" as meaning the head maintainers=2E= I thought you were using this only sensible meaning of "we", and responde= d to that=2E But if you believe that just saying "we should" will get the thing done, t= hen you have said that already, and so we should simply wait for it to happ= en, because "we all" will do it=2E Right?