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: Maintainers and contributors Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:32:02 +0200 Message-ID: <87bnbrxewt.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> References: <87si59wj42.fsf@T420.taylan> <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> <87fv13xirw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <5628D0D2.4050507@yandex.ru> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445517175 7305 80.91.229.3 (22 Oct 2015 12:32:55 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:32:55 +0000 (UTC) Cc: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com, emacs-devel To: Dmitry Gutov Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 22 14:32:55 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 1ZpF33-0004Ql-1B for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:32:49 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:59365 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpF32-0003Ji-2T for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:32:48 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55451) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpF2y-0003JV-Ck for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:32:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpF2x-00082q-F2 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:32:44 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::e]:58114) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpF2v-00082d-Ut; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:32:41 -0400 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:43700 helo=lola) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.82) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpF2u-00080O-GF; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:32:41 -0400 Original-Received: by lola (Postfix, from userid 1000) id 1682CDF494; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:32:02 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <5628D0D2.4050507@yandex.ru> (Dmitry Gutov's message of "Thu, 22 Oct 2015 15:04:34 +0300") 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:192373 Archived-At: Dmitry Gutov writes: > On 10/22/2015 02:55 PM, Artur Malabarba wrote: > >> The problem is that too often these conversations rotate around the >> same point without going anywhere. This message would be a way to >> make sure the conversation is progressing, and not an attempt to put >> a full stop on it (I see the previous version didn't communicate this >> well). Note that this would only be done if the same point has >> already gone back and forth twice. > > I don't think number 4 would have helped in the latest incident. If > the submitter is dead-set on an idea and doesn't want to heed, "we all > agree on disagreeing with you" would probably spark the same reactions > that we've already seen. The reviewers are tyrants, the mailing list > has problems and needs a psychologist. > > So I rather also put a nice list of rules somewhere that makes it > clear that at some point you listen to the reviewers, or go > away. Maybe with a nice of explanation of why that's important. Again, this is somewhat complicated by the reviewers not having a formally different standing from the submitter. Commit access is a technical detail, not a ranking. So in the end it will always boil down to the ability of working towards a consensus, and part of the consensus forming does rely on established relations of trust in others' competence established over longer amounts of time. So yes, newcomers tend to have a harder stand. I don't see that as being specific to Emacs. Even if Emacs has a comparatively large number of "ancient" developers that were there from before the beginning of kernel and are still somewhat active as well as several at least around for decades. Several other old projects "suffer" from only a single person of significant authority and thus may appear to have a smaller barrier of entry. I'm not sure whether it would have helped to let Taylan shout it out with Eli alone. Maybe it would have helped if Eli had handed off the discussion completely to someone else at a point of time when it became obvious that things were going nowhere. It might have better conveyed it emotionally that this is not about "winning" anything but getting a contribution in the shape and form that we keep Emacs in. > The amount of time wasted on that recent thread has been staggering. You bet. -- David Kastrup