Re: Contributors and maintainers

[Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org>]

> From: taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 14:03:33 +0200
> Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org
> 
> I have to disagree, and offer an alternative analysis by someone who's
> not me and is quite a bit better at social issues than me.
> 
>     The usual approach on emacs-devel when dealing with something they
>     don't like is to come up with random arguments, ignore
>     counter-arguments, and move goalposts around because getting
>     convinced by arguments is not something you do on the internet.
> 
>     From the glimpse I took, that's roughly what's happening there:
>     They don't like the idea because gut feeling, so they nitpick
>     irrelevancies and go off on tangents to support their gut feeling.

I don't think things happen like that around here.  But the
description is so vague and devoid of any specific details that it's
easy to misinterpret.  I would first and foremost suspect some
misunderstanding.  After all, for most people here, myself included,
English is not their first language, so nuances could sometimes lead
to misunderstandings.  Can we have the person(s) who came up with this
description please speak up and point to specific discussions and
specific messages that could lead to such conclusions, and perhaps
suggest ways for changing the dynamics here away of that?

> How about, *first* of all, the latest version of my ELPA patch gets
> applied, so there is an *immediate* benefit to Emacs users.  Claiming
> that a single line of duplicated code outweighs that would be absurd.
> 
> After that, emacs-devel can make whatever change they want to the
> package.

Is that what this is about? that you don't want to make that change
yourself, but agree to someone else making it?  If so, then I think we
will gladly provide that service, and there are no more obstacles for
admitting the package.