From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributors and maintainers Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:19:02 +0300 Message-ID: <83io60ult5.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87si59wj42.fsf@T420.taylan> <877fmjj9p6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zizfm2dq.fsf@T420.taylan> <871tcr7yvq.fsf@fastmail.com> <87mvvfm0bd.fsf@T420.taylan> <56250803.5080601@cs.ucla.edu> <87a8ren5ys.fsf@T420.taylan> <56259BB1.3070908@cs.ucla.edu> <878u6ykmvt.fsf@T420.taylan> <87h9llvo98.fsf@members.fsf.org> <5626622A.3090707@yandex.ru> <87zizdijbp.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267302.7050606@yandex.ru> <87io61igyu.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267CDF.6010201@yandex.ru> <87wpuhh15s.fsf@T420.taylan> <562683B9.1060305@yandex.ru> <83y4exe71v.fsf@gnu.org> <87zizcfzna.fsf@T420.taylan> <87io60dsir.fsf@T420.taylan> Reply-To: Eli Zaretskii NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445482237 24729 80.91.229.3 (22 Oct 2015 02:50:37 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 02:50:37 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org To: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich =?utf-8?Q?Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1=2FK?= =?utf-8?Q?ammer?=) Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 22 04:50:28 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 1Zp5xK-0006DD-TY for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:50:19 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:55374 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zp5xJ-0007AZ-HX for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 22:50:17 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51929) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zoxye-0007K9-0f for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:19:09 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zoxya-0005Zy-OP for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:19:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mtaout26.012.net.il ([80.179.55.182]:51882) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zoxya-0005Ye-B7 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:19:04 -0400 Original-Received: from conversion-daemon.mtaout26.012.net.il by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) id <0NWL008001GFNH00@mtaout26.012.net.il> for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:22:19 +0300 (IDT) Original-Received: from HOME-C4E4A596F7 ([84.94.185.246]) by mtaout26.012.net.il (HyperSendmail v2007.08) with ESMTPA id <0NWL008CW1P64D10@mtaout26.012.net.il>; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 21:22:19 +0300 (IDT) In-reply-to: <87io60dsir.fsf@T420.taylan> X-012-Sender: halo1@inter.net.il X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6.x X-Received-From: 80.179.55.182 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:192339 Archived-At: > From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich Bay=C4=B1rl=C4=B1/Kamm= er) > Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 19:46:04 +0200 >=20 > I honestly don't remember a single response that even seemed to > acknowledge the concern I've explained multiple times in detail, > except for responses by Random832. Having responded at all is not > proof of having addressed the > [...] > > We've been living with the current shell-quote-argument for liter= ally > > *decades*, which might explain why we're not instantly ready to m= ake changes > > -- even though Eli has made a change to the docstring at your req= uest. How > > does that constitute "no response"? I am confused. >=20 > It made a change that was neither asked for (by me at least), nor > addressed my concern. Think about how irritating it must be to spe= nd a > lot of effort to explain a concern, *also* provide a patch which so= lves > that concern, and then have the maintainer reject your patch and in= stead > apply one of their own which *doesn't* address your concern. How can installing a change triggered by your bug report be _anything= _ _but_ A RESPONSE to your concerns? It was not the patch you proposed= , that's true, but it was my response to the less-than-ideal situation that _you_ described. That's _exactly_ what we are here for: to listen to you and others, make our own analysis of the situation, and act accordingly. You wil= l have to accept a trivial thing -- that the way we act on your reports and proposals will not always exactly match what you proposed, becaus= e we have different perspectives and different experiences. When you will become an Emacs maintainer, a day that I hope will come, you wil= l have the same prerogative and the same responsibilities. > > Also, it does not help to reiterate how clear and cogent your arg= uments have > > been. Until we both agree, "clarity" and "cogency" have not been = achieved. > > These attributes must exist *between* disputants; they cannot be = determined by > > one side alone. We have all been working to achieve clarity, but = I fear this > > has been misunderstood as a stubborn rejection of your ideas. >=20 > The problem is that the concern was not even acknowledged, let alon= e > being shown the courtesy to be openly disagreed with. What else can possibly acknowledge your concern, if not making change= s to resolve your concerns?? > And all the while reiterating my main concern that remained unaddre= ssed, > I *did* try to address many of the counter-concerns that were raise= d, > although in the grand scheme of things they only served to divert > attention away from my concern. That's your lopsided POV, nothing else. You only consider your concerns addressed if they and your suggested solutions are_absolutely_ accepted, without any changes. You don't allow anyon= e to deviate even an inch from your proposals, and if they dare, they are "not addressing" and "not acknowledging" your concerns. Really, this is beyond 1984's Newspeak. > All of this may not be easy to see to an outside observer of the to= pic. No, it's actually VERY easy to see. Fact is, several people here independently told you exactly the same: you need to accept the judgment of the project maintenance team, and you should respect thei= r decisions even if you disagree with them. > All that might make it very hard to understand why such a level of > irritation would happen in first place, which is why I'm trying to = take > a sort of empirical approach to the problem, which is to enumerate = the > mails in which I explain the same concern, and ask for mails in whi= ch > that concern is clearly acknowledged, and responded to with explici= t > disagreement or a solution; anything but bringing up a "related" to= pic. Your concerns were acknowledged, but your proposed solutions were disagreed to. That's all that happened. You need to learn to accept that, because this is how any Free Software community works. > I wish we had a professional psychologist or sociologist as part of= the > maintainer team. :-) She wasn't needed until now.