Re: Contributors and maintainers

[taylanbayirli@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)]

"John Wiegley" <johnw@newartisans.com> writes:

>>>>>> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
>> That's also my point, exactly. Any code in Emacs should use standard APIs,
>> and if those APIs need to be fixed, they should be fixed regardless. But the
>> need to be fixed does not mean the APIs should be bypassed.
>
> This message is not just to Taylan, but to others who wish to contribute to
> Emacs in the future.
>
> The argument transpiring between Taylan and Eli has attempted to paint a
> picture wherein the proposed change is "obviously" right (as seen by the
> submitter) and "obviously" unacceptable (as seen by the maintainer). This
> clash has led to much heated debate.
>
> Part of the debate seems to be a lack of appreciation of the difference
> between contributors and maintainers. You see, it is not sufficient to have a
> good idea, no matter how clear it is to its submitter. *We* maintain Emacs,
> and so the change must satisfy *us*, no matter how thick our skulls may be. If
> we ask for clarification that Wednesday follows Tuesday, either you provide us
> with that clarification, or the change doesn't go in. Period.
>
> Our work is done on a volunteer basis, and so we choose what we want to
> support in the future, and what we don't. Like it or not, Eli is 100% correct
> and right, as maintainer, to ask for clarifications how and when he sees fit
> -- and to expect those clarification in a format he wants to see them in! This
> will remain true until he steps down as maintainer, or someone else fills his
> shoes.
>
> 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.

Let me list some different mails in which I repeated more or less the
same explanation with different wording:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01392.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01401.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01409.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01415.html
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01448.html
(maybe more, I didn't went through all)

One person got it and also repeated it in their words:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01464.html

And me again on the bug discussion:
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2015-10/msg00676.html
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2015-10/msg00698.html

That makes at least 7 times in which I repeated the same thing, and it
was ignored every time.

Some of those mails contain very detailed, careful explanations of the
issue, which I spent a lot of time on.  At least 2 or 3 are of that
nature.

Some other mails by me were also hinging on the same issue, mentioning
it implicitly if not explicitly.

I also provided a pair of patches (the second more elaborate) to solve
this problem I explained.  The nature of the patches (their contrast to
Eli's patch) should further explain the problem.

I hope this makes it clear why I'm outraged.  When I say something like
"I repeated myself a dozen times and was ignored every time," the
"dozen" in that sentence is, by now, actually literal.  That's absurd.

> If anyone does not like this, be forewarned. Otherwise, please show Eli and
> the other developers here the respect and deference they deserve, especially
> in light of *how much time* they have given freely to the Emacs project. Are
> they ideal individuals who always express themselves perfectly? Probably not.
> But they are our maintainers, and if you can't respect them, you shouldn't be
> contributing here. It will only frustrate you.

What I gather from being persistently ignored is that I'm receiving
absolutely *no* respect *at all* from most people here.  That is the one
and only reason I would start losing respect towards others.  The
detailed and polite explanations of my problem listed above hopefully
give a hint on which way the lack of respect primarily goes.

The lack of respect I'm receiving is *not* of the kind where someone is
being actively nasty, insulting, etc.  It's a kind where a person's very
voice is being denied, not even countered.  That's pretty grave.

> Lastly, if anyone is having persistent, negative experiences with some aspect
> of the Emacs developer community, please approach me directly. My e-mail is
> johnw@newartisans.com. It is my vehement interest that we find a successful
> path for all involved, and I will work with anyone to help make this possible.

I doubt most people who come to contribute code have much motivation to
work out basic social issues.  My feedback is probably the best you will
get, and I'm not saying it's good at all.

Most others will just leave the place immediately, or not even try
because they already saw in the archive or heard from others enough
horrible things about emacs-devel.

I hope this helps.

> John

Taylan