Re: Maintainers and contributors

[David Kastrup <dak@gnu.org>]

Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com> writes:

> And then there's a fourth point, which is a little harder, but it
> would really help demonstrate organization and respect.
>
> 4. If the same point goes back and forth twice between you and the
> contributor, then stop arguing about it. Bring it up in a separate
> place just amongst the maintainers, and then come back and say "Hi
> ___, I brought this up with X, Y, and Z yesterday, and decided that
> ___ because ___.".

I'm not sure about that.  I react _really_ _really_ allergic to people
making decisions involving me in some more or less formal group behind
my back about me in settings that are supposed to constitute a team or
community.

It establishes that I am not considered a member on equal terms with
other members, since a group of members not including myself is supposed
to speak and decide for the group.

> More importantly, it shows respect, organization, and professionalism.

It shows a hierarchy of authority and does not give me an opportunity to
speak for myself.

> This may occasionally give off the impression that emacs-devel is
> super picky about the code it lets in, but that's better than giving
> off the impression that it is a messy team with no structure and that
> submitting code is akin to roullete.

It is.  Problems may or may not be seen in informal review.  There is no
guarantee that anybody may look at code, so some code will tend to get
more scrutiny than other code by mere chance.  If you are hoping for
less scrutiny, that should make you think about what you are actually
doing.  If you are hoping for more, you might be out of luck, but it may
well be worth pointing out that you don't feel particularly secure about
parts of your code in order to get more people take a look at it.

-- 
David Kastrup