From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Artur Malabarba Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Maintainers and contributors Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 12:55:13 +0100 Message-ID: References: <87si59wj42.fsf@T420.taylan> <877fmjj9p6.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> <87zizfm2dq.fsf@T420.taylan> <871tcr7yvq.fsf@fastmail.com> <87mvvfm0bd.fsf@T420.taylan> <56250803.5080601@cs.ucla.edu> <87a8ren5ys.fsf@T420.taylan> <56259BB1.3070908@cs.ucla.edu> <878u6ykmvt.fsf@T420.taylan> <87h9llvo98.fsf@members.fsf.org> <5626622A.3090707@yandex.ru> <87zizdijbp.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267302.7050606@yandex.ru> <87io61igyu.fsf@T420.taylan> <56267CDF.6010201@yandex.ru> <87wpuhh15s.fsf@T420.taylan> <562683B9.1060305@yandex.ru> <83y4exe71v.fsf@gnu.org> <87fv13xirw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> Reply-To: bruce.connor.am@gmail.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1445514957 3155 80.91.229.3 (22 Oct 2015 11:55:57 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 11:55:57 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel To: David Kastrup Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Oct 22 13:55:50 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpET0-0000jT-VH for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 13:55:35 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58982 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpET0-0000aM-7z for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:55:34 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:45164) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpESj-0000Z4-3X for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:55:20 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpESh-0004iQ-Vs for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:55:17 -0400 Original-Received: from mail-lf0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e]:34826) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZpESg-0004ha-6p; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 07:55:14 -0400 Original-Received: by lfbn126 with SMTP id n126so10541199lfb.2; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:55:13 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:reply-to:sender:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id :subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=udAXbqFFNQDHI1VvKgmUedrmWNXRACg4yRmwSnaWIrM=; b=YnDUmmVjbuMmYqU3XBCwmTtoyoQMf/LsTg+u7Qsb3yBNDUFguyW0QWBIppxSVkglcp 2AQGfD3daReZ7dFXwdWfV/b/YVLkPkyvUucXst3/iIFkMPYIjHbz6KEGJV29oRd++T82 dN/VHHFIQ+sNwRoI8bDDCA7HIJHpax5i8cKZJRAN5QkwdRbh/rzkaOeMorVTnNCioHtm elQtfDgpxjqYgWHSTztqR+uRDCwk3Beixrd/ci+1sirGVJoDRRAmEWfvg161Gbtt2Vkn aZj+hWCnFJvAzJ+hH3z4v6ntWWgvXDa4g88a5d7NAcIeEg1FusJC2y1iR2EZ7BQXpRC+ o9MQ== X-Received: by 10.112.145.232 with SMTP id sx8mr8191319lbb.4.1445514913528; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:55:13 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: by 10.25.22.197 with HTTP; Thu, 22 Oct 2015 04:55:13 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <87fv13xirw.fsf@fencepost.gnu.org> X-Google-Sender-Auth: ESLjOMJmZZpuXOApe0d_MLCtoxg X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Error: Malformed IPv6 address (bad octet value). X-Received-From: 2a00:1450:4010:c07::22e X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:192367 Archived-At: 2015-10-22 12:08 GMT+01:00 David Kastrup : > Artur Malabarba 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.