Here I was making the point that it's hard to say what'd be a good enough Clojure mode for Emacs unless you actually a subject expert in Clojure. (or at least reasonable familiar with Clojure) This was a response to the statement that simply deriving from lisp-mode would be good enough. Sorry if I didn't make this clear. 

The topic of whether Clojure support should be included OOTB is completely orthogonal to this IMO. 

On Sun, Sep 3, 2023, at 5:42 PM, Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> > Date: Sun, 03 Sep 2023 17:04:32 +0200
> > From: "Bozhidar Batsov" <bozhidar@batsov.dev>
> > Cc: "Richard Stallman" <rms@gnu.org>, "Danny Freeman" <danny@dfreeman.email>, 
> >  "Eli Zaretskii" <eliz@gnu.org>, "Emacs Devel" <emacs-devel@gnu.org>,
> >  "Manuel Uberti" <manuel.uberti@inventati.org>
> > 
> > Without an understanding of Clojure and its tooling ecosystem (and it's history) it's hard to
> > make good suggestions about what makes sense and what doesn't. 
> 
> I disagree with this assertion, and disagree in general, not just
> specifically wrt clojure-mode.  One of the important jobs of an Emacs
> maintainer is to understand enough about any candidate feature to make
> this kind of decisions, without being an expert in its subject matter.
> Maybe I'm doing my job not well enough, but you seem to be saying that
> this job is impossible to do, and that the only people who can make
> good decisions about this are the experts on the subject matter.  That
> is certainly incorrect.
> 
> It doesn't take a genius to realize that Clojure is an important
> programming language, and the way to the decision of having it
> supported OOTB in Emacs is very short from there.
>