From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.ciao.gmane.io!not-for-mail From: Drew Adams Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: RE: How to poll the users Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2020 09:20:19 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <7025f382-3eaa-4891-8f22-a9926f7f5fa7@default> References: <87k12bdgx7.fsf@yahoo.com> <87a736wyed.fsf@yahoo.com> <2F7AD0CB-FF83-4244-BD77-7E0460A77762@icloud.com> <87wo6a7abj.fsf@yahoo.com> <87o8rlbnic.fsf@yahoo.com> <45098d13-2770-4a19-6f82-b22276eb51c8@yandex.ru> <877dy91mb0.fsf@yahoo.com> <0ce06d95-0593-bc55-983f-6b6601503a1a@yandex.ru> <38f07534-f9db-64eb-5256-e73bcebafef4@yandex.ru> <8e4a5b46-f9a6-400e-f573-f73b419e229f@yandex.ru> <8f1cf2d3-4d55-4ad3-9322-9876fa9862a9@default> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="ciao.gmane.io:159.69.161.202"; logging-data="102977"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, pcr910303@icloud.com, seb@k-7.ch, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Dmitry Gutov , rms@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Apr 25 18:23:00 2020 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 1jSNZz-000Qds-WE for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 18:23:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:40450 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSNZy-0003FR-V0 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:22:58 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57462) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSNZT-0002dA-Gp for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:22:27 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSNZS-00039s-5L for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:22:27 -0400 Original-Received: from userp2120.oracle.com ([156.151.31.85]:59138) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1jSNZR-00032T-Ig; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 12:22:25 -0400 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp2120.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp2120.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03PGKfiv036713; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:22:23 GMT DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=oracle.com; h=mime-version : message-id : date : from : sender : to : cc : subject : references : in-reply-to : content-type : content-transfer-encoding; s=corp-2020-01-29; bh=kJKX/HLfHWyAj8VNzvkDEKsGEGntX7DFwBHhgp3M/1E=; b=ot4otBWk9epJJYxaCZD80hiDSfaoG00BXRt8T8lg5lUrXKkAzQcB0satu1aXosjSP7uT uXZPteSZqEDJihPrnLhS54KJ/z6xtoynkqs8XOZYmS+Ieff67XrgMpOHt4lp4lDJmkf5 jEP+3+3P7IPkX6e1JFDANnuphGPbKvbWQsP0GF6/p1Vjuf3Mc7/afCgBQeUd734drJJ2 nvrKo+3irFfAuctFCoDQwHFeu4fAylf16X0XcGSLwZYSjUyXbJH+53rNntTkcwxxw5Tl eTmHRaYdS5qVhHb5dXJ7ubfZMUd5Gs1pN+RqggF2gYQKsaBz+bn/OuZSlkvm/Qni1cA2 Wg== Original-Received: from userp3030.oracle.com (userp3030.oracle.com [156.151.31.80]) by userp2120.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30mdums5mv-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:22:23 +0000 Original-Received: from pps.filterd (userp3030.oracle.com [127.0.0.1]) by userp3030.oracle.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id 03PGGbBZ039164; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:20:22 GMT Original-Received: from userv0121.oracle.com (userv0121.oracle.com [156.151.31.72]) by userp3030.oracle.com with ESMTP id 30maasmbeh-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:20:22 +0000 Original-Received: from abhmp0004.oracle.com (abhmp0004.oracle.com [141.146.116.10]) by userv0121.oracle.com (8.14.4/8.13.8) with ESMTP id 03PGKKJb002686; Sat, 25 Apr 2020 16:20:20 GMT In-Reply-To: X-Priority: 3 X-Mailer: Oracle Beehive Extensions for Outlook 2.0.1.9.1 (1003210) [OL 16.0.4993.0 (x86)] X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9602 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 adultscore=0 phishscore=0 mlxlogscore=928 bulkscore=0 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=18 mlxscore=0 spamscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004250142 X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=nai engine=6000 definitions=9602 signatures=668686 X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 mlxlogscore=992 lowpriorityscore=0 suspectscore=18 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1015 mlxscore=0 impostorscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 priorityscore=1501 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.12.0-2003020000 definitions=main-2004250142 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=156.151.31.85; envelope-from=drew.adams@oracle.com; helo=userp2120.oracle.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: First seen = 2020/04/25 11:36:34 X-ACL-Warn: Detected OS = Linux 3.x [generic] [fuzzy] X-Received-From: 156.151.31.85 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:247795 Archived-At: > >> If I do create a poll, and the outcome would strongly indicate a > >> change of the default, we'd pretty much have to change it then, though= . > > > > FWIW, I don't agree with that conclusion, in the abstract. >=20 > If the poll doesn't contain an implicit promise (e.g. "we considering a > change of default"), the turnout is likely to be much lower. Which is > not what we want, I think. tl;dr: Poll results are one, and only one consideration. --- An implicit promise to consider is not the same thing as a position that a poll outcome strongly indicates that the default should be changed. It may or may not strongly indicate an opinion by the people who responded, and that may or may not be strongly relevant to the question. And just having a poll suggests that there will be consideration of the poll results, and that such consideration could include the question of changing the default. And if the question of default change is really part of the question at hand then it should be explicitly part of the poll. E.g. not just "What's your use or preference, personally?" but also "Do you think your preferred behavior should be the default behavior? The point is that default-changing is (should be) a case-by-case decision. And it can be (and usually is) based on multiple considerations - not just a user poll. One question about polls is their representation, who the responders are, what their relation to the question (e.g. their use of Emacs) is, etc. I said I didn't agree with your conclusion _in the abstract_. That's the problem with it. It might be a reasonable conclusion in some particular case (some particular poll question). But it's not reasonable as an abstract proposition.