From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: David Kastrup Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Contributors and maintainers Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:45:17 +0200 Message-ID: <871tcoehk2.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <83y4exe71v.fsf@gnu.org> <87zizcfzna.fsf@T420.taylan> <20151021.102719.485566340.wl@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445417178 15026 80.91.229.3 (21 Oct 2015 08:46:18 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 08:46:18 +0000 (UTC) Cc: taylanbayirli@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Werner LEMBERG Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed Oct 21 10:46:12 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 1Zop2A-0004C6-TP for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:46:11 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49904 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zop2A-0002Mj-D6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:46:10 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51248) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zop26-0002Mc-PG for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:46:07 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zop25-0006hf-Rx for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:46:06 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:57829) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Zop1z-0006fu-89; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:45:59 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43415 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1Zop1y-0002vV-Hx; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 04:45:58 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 131CBF2330; Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:45:17 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <20151021.102719.485566340.wl@gnu.org> (Werner LEMBERG's message of "Wed, 21 Oct 2015 10:27:19 +0200 (CEST)") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2001:4830:134:3::e 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:192274 Archived-At: Werner LEMBERG writes: >>> No submitter can brow-beat us into accepting a patch because they >>> think it is "clear" or "right" or "obvious". This isn't how >>> collaboration works in the free software world. We decide who has >>> commit rights, and we reserve the right to reject and revert >>> commits. >> >> I provided clarification several times. It was ignored. > > Certainly not. You got *a lot* of replies. > >> Let me list some different mails in which I repeated more or less >> the same explanation with different wording: > > This is exactly the `agree to disagree' situation I've mentioned in a > previous e-mail. Well, these days generally "discussion" is understood as everybody repeating his opinion until most drop out, maybe a trickling down from the culture of political debate, with a focus on scoring points rather than extending one's views. This mode of discussion tends to work rather bad in a closed round of experts. Repeating your point on the assumption that your opponent was just too dumb to get it the first time gets old rather fast. Instead of making the same point over and over again and riling everybody including yourself up in the process, you better try bringing up new facts or considerations. Everything else is only likely to affect the emotional but not the factual result of the discussion. While "everybody's glad that this is over and one will not meet ever again" may be a somewhat emotionally conclusive resolution in substitute for a convergence to factual agreement, it's not much of a basis for ongoing work. -- David Kastrup