Re: participation & contribution [was: Latest changes with lisp/uni-*.el and leim/quail]

[Karl Fogel <kfogel@red-bean.com>]

"Stephen J. Turnbull" <stephen@xemacs.org> writes:
>Really?  What he did was to get commit privileges, and then repeatedly
>refuse to use them because the VCS *he* chose is too much trouble to
>learn how to use.  That's "normal"?

Not saying it's common, but I've seen it before with drive-by
contributions (even from people who technically have commit access).

> > He (and others) objected to him being *criticized*.  It's fine to
> > choose not to commit his patch; it's not fine to flame him for
> > having different priorities from some other developers.
>
>The objections are misguided.  His behavior is rude and deserves
>criticism.  The circumstances explain, even if they don't justify, the
>public flames.
>
>Although the words flamed his priorities, the *reason* he was flamed
>is that he is abusing the hospitality of Eli (and Glenn), who spent a
>fair amount of effort mentoring him, without which there would be no
>committable patch.  He repaid that effort by refusing to take on a
>minor chore (committing his own patch), and justified that by
>explaining how valuable his time is to him.

I didn't know about the mentoring, and agree that in that circumstance
there is often an implicit bargain of "If we help you get up to speed,
you'll take the trouble to repay our efforts by contributing (overcoming
whatever minor technical obstacles that may involve)."  That changes
things.  Based on just the messages I saw, this history wasn't apparent
-- sorry for commenting without knowing the full context.

Best,
-K