Re: Maintainers and contributors

[Artur Malabarba <bruce.connor.am@gmail.com>]

2015-10-22 12:08 GMT+01:00 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.

If others agree with that, we can drop the 4th item, I think the first
3 would already be a nice improvement.

Or we can rephrase it to make it sounds less like a decision was made,
and more like we're summarizing the progress so far (e.g. "we
understand that [[A]] is important to you, but we all agree that [[B]]
is a higher priority to us. If you have further concerns besides [[A]]
or if you think we misunderstood [[A]], then do let us know").

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.
At this point, you _have_ spoken for yourself (twice already), so we
should just ensure that any further communication is to raise new
points, not repeat what has already been repeated once.