From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp11.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4789::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms9.migadu.com with LMTPS id pFKTBCyo/GRQxgAA9RJhRA:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 19:15:24 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:4789::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp11.migadu.com with LMTPS id pFKTBCyo/GRQxgAA9RJhRA (envelope-from ) for ; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 19:15:24 +0200 Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by aspmx1.migadu.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 864D7442D6 for ; Sat, 9 Sep 2023 19:15:23 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=JgP4H+cw; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yhetil.org; s=key1; t=1694279724; h=from:from:sender:sender:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date: message-id:message-id:to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version: content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references:list-id:list-help: list-unsubscribe:list-subscribe:list-post:dkim-signature; bh=tTQOmWtiRLxp+QYfo2RZyO0EGrCqhnFUTgb3musenRM=; b=JRpXTCbr36YqFEBvOSb/cVK9jlyWwBM6y4/GOJu9uu0w64S/i5ELUTw8EeHWV+qD6RWawC VCe8tTOuBbD3Twhd5fIE3zMaH3YvJjANn3692yDzpG7P9ksY0+Qg5EqB70vuIF6UMrZVbX VW5/2AqehzXVwR/mJ0WuoeX1MS+PCG9Sz5lhkPgw1UtjTsXoCyJBpNA9gv6JZh0q4Sw3d+ ze5KNxlWELsH80jCO6GTbqJiIEEetlJLdhJ3Jv9KLUotn+egMcsNnX9Oly7th0MdXmNblm 1qkf/ky4IU7o7ajQbZ2MEQkbhP0zpG0VjOTEFEk/6CiWJmTf6d+SZzLW4gNMrQ== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=JgP4H+cw; spf=pass (aspmx1.migadu.com: domain of "guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org" designates 209.51.188.17 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom="guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org"; dmarc=pass (policy=none) header.from=gmail.com ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1694279724; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=dcsSnaQBUihZBD+SnZ4UIn59wwyIaruxCeeXDGwYavXdV54Mj6+ro6orKquqD2EHL6Uq3T m6AWEexvIendRN8taNCjPIwIOTugpK+tU1zkegpc+6iOSfvwvlBsirQQE/KYB4U2K2xnQw nodV4IO6AVUWNbOKdAcU/hbNDcGHLTwHRqJ05phSzfVuw3Dk+kEPVP8Nnrz3KsngQQPCdS 54PVdZ+2nx01OXUJryKD7zpOFmHHT8jK3388BK6eg1PsFEjPq1Pb3RCpA1435VwDkRpyWW S5jRZAn52S5fUfeEt5JXOvBKWhTJaURIS8WnhMwqczF/pRJYXdtSc3R1xWj9aQ== Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qf1Xl-00080Y-NP; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 13:14:50 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qf1Xd-0007zP-60 for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 13:14:41 -0400 Received: from mail-ed1-x543.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::543]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qf1Xa-0000gA-EK for guix-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 13:14:40 -0400 Received: by mail-ed1-x543.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-52c88a03f99so3794063a12.2 for ; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 10:14:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1694279676; x=1694884476; darn=gnu.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:from:to:cc:subject :date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tTQOmWtiRLxp+QYfo2RZyO0EGrCqhnFUTgb3musenRM=; b=JgP4H+cwfRgcfyrfp6wj11kaI3rOwGvH+Cgqk8mLnJshxMa7W+nW+HNmJ6HTdxPcMf wmsYgvw4JwyIE4AYd8j6LAuI4FzsAXWByjdYgdTYNfbVQ2if4uK3p7zkeFFceXB31Wkp ZaeDNl/KIbamFaQSDZWK3HsGIQRIMZsgS6Eq1Uy8VtP4PhVaPhtW7Dm2/pHpXGfr4cNq BMF2SZNMT+eZOWs08/WYMWxiSYHurHoXm9C9px7kMRGbltZ1hTsCmm2HiKBuGImajaCq h5tbXLipW4HPVJh8dhK4uWaZErQTnPRJC7qSn/j94dvfEjbzYO3xRcNTDXabPjR/9U+J vG6w== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1694279676; x=1694884476; h=mime-version:user-agent:content-transfer-encoding:references :in-reply-to:date:cc:to:from:subject:message-id:x-gm-message-state :from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=tTQOmWtiRLxp+QYfo2RZyO0EGrCqhnFUTgb3musenRM=; b=DTAmM/5RnOIYijem37bMNmolqpQxBx0uCPguEQfgp9RszbFvn6GrOUfFU66vnjXutw 0NzfyPiu1jBkzK2OCurBF/Tjct9MMjkfg91OvzWnwmiqqsBN/HeoRIbMDiJzlOwnnBP9 kOiBe4OOjm8xL4TQMC6/Q/nxrFyFWfXZp5sGHDY4JarV20Jy8+Iqgt0ZnvBc7jHdFBdL jqmWa37JszTI7rncVYqeQTW/73yDTI7jmtveMNLMqWgqy/JscGuNPsjc7AP2o4fI/MnW 1uRqvFE9f1o015xYThhCSSRH2vPYBpCNDX5JSoWlNKa7QHFB9cEnZHjbB4Ud3r2Spe3w lJxA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwLdSJyzv9piU2qxKr5rQakmTkscajH0y6tiwsjyUUcmmgbQ0KQ 85fKCzMqWfclalpvYedA7NE= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGKD5alRwewH6djKb0VPOWXLZVn3WgSTv8oC0ez1fazcKy9ISiOU0yuVbeX7pE0bn0FMe+3Qw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:688:b0:523:10c8:82b9 with SMTP id f8-20020a056402068800b0052310c882b9mr4771556edy.16.1694279676331; Sat, 09 Sep 2023 10:14:36 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lumine.fritz.box (85-127-52-93.dsl.dynamic.surfer.at. [85.127.52.93]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id i9-20020a056402054900b00528dc95ad4bsm2354556edx.95.2023.09.09.10.14.34 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Sat, 09 Sep 2023 10:14:35 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Subject: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? From: Liliana Marie Prikler To: Katherine Cox-Buday , Simon Tournier , Maxim Cournoyer , Saku Laesvuori Cc: Attila Lendvai , Andreas Enge , Felix "Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU Systemtdistribution." Date: Sat, 09 Sep 2023 19:14:33 +0200 In-Reply-To: <37edb289-d49e-0d74-05f2-4cc93c6129aa@gmail.com> References: <20230827135726.y33t55w4cvq6zsvb@X-kone> <874jkift8v.fsf@gmail.com> <867cp4sj7k.fsf@gmail.com> <38242808-2f06-4674-3842-aea1a5378d05@gmail.com> <86v8cop6sy.fsf@gmail.com> <8634zrpt40.fsf@gmail.com> <37edb289-d49e-0d74-05f2-4cc93c6129aa@gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable User-Agent: Evolution 3.46.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::543; envelope-from=liliana.prikler@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-x543.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: guix-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org Sender: guix-devel-bounces+larch=yhetil.org@gnu.org X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Country: US X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 864D7442D6 X-Migadu-Scanner: mx1.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -0.43 X-Spam-Score: -0.43 X-TUID: oxqqqA0Ioq9g Am Donnerstag, dem 07.09.2023 um 14:39 -0600 schrieb Katherine Cox- Buday: > > Somehow, that=E2=80=99s the remark by Liliana [1], > >=20 > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 Maybe it's time to tak= e a step back and instead of asking=20 > > =E2=80=9CHow can we decrease the cognitive overhead for > > contributors?=E2=80=9D, we should perhaps ask =E2=80=9CFor whi= ch=20 > > contributors do we want to/can we decrease the cognitive > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 overhead?=E2=80=9D >=20 > That quote is at the end of a dismissive ad hominem response which > has grossly misinterpreted this discussion, even attributes it to > malice [...] Hi, pot, kettle speaking. Now, I appreciate the ways in which you think I might be misrepresenting your points even as I talk about the points other people are making, but I'd appreciate even more if you considered that you might also be (intentionally or otherwise) misrepresenting the points others make. You did so when Simon used an idiomatic phrase for voicing disbelief, and you did it again here. > seems to draw the conclusion that contributing to Guix should be left > to those for whom the current situation is fine This is the antithesis of what I am aiming for. To quote my reply to your initial message. > Contributions are open to everybody (as long as they pass the first > hurdle which is a very manual check to see if they spam our mailing > lists or not), but the review process ensures that the outcome > remains high quality. This is desirable. >=20 > Now you might say that this leads to less diversity in the team of > committers and maintainers as you need a certain level of privilege > to seriously entertain the idea of dedicating that much time and > effort to a project and I agree, but I also think this is a bigger > reality of volunteer work in general. TL;DR: Guix follows a model where contribution is open to everyone but a select few decide which contributions make it upstream. This is the best we can get for the sole reason that we need quality control. If we didn't have the select few or the select few didn't do their job of only accepting changes that don't "break the world" for all Guixers out there properly, things would be very bad. Now, Guix also has channels, which are fully free to all in that everyone can run their own channel, but coming back to cognitive overhead, maintaining your own channels *and* contributing to Guix proper would at least in some instances be double work.=20 > , and even intimates that those who would like to improve the > situation are incompetent. I assume you meant insinuates =E2=80=93 maybe I don't do English like a nat= ive speaker after all and intimates means the same =E2=80=93 but again, I don't think you're incompetent because you, say, fail to type a perfect ChangeLog. I would think it to be a little selfish if you submitted a series of 100 patches and none of them had an even slightly useful commit message, but that's only tangentially related to the point in that I am so vocal about the ChangeLog thing because I already see people not adhering to the convention and I'd really hate to encourage the sending of such series. Now, you say that you would "like to improve the situation", but I'd like you to take a step back and first consider whether a given change would actually end up "improving the situation" before committing to it. In the ChangeLog case, there is a lot to be gained from automation, assuming the automation produces correct results and doesn't hallucinate ChangeLogs =C3=A0 la ChatGPT. On the other hand, there is also much information to be lost if we were to switch formats to something else, even if that something else is preferred by a group of people that dislikes ChangeLogs. > Contextualized, this quote is insinuating that I'm trying many > different arguments in an attempt to push an agenda, and that because > of this, any of the points I've made are suspect and should be > dismissed. If you're talking about the many different arguments thrown specifically against ChangeLogs that I mentioned in the same message, these actually came from different folks and I attributed them to no one. =20 > Read charitably, this quote suggests that there is a singular, best, > way to do things, and that if it doesn't work for some, the problem > is not the process, but that "those people" are incompetent. >=20 > This is classic gatekeeping. Uhm, no it doesn't? What I actually mean when I wrote these lines, is that we all have (whether we are aware of it or not) a group of people in mind that we care about when we say that we would like to improve things. Picturing this group clearly helps you when deciding your priorities =E2=80=93 which just like adjacency, is indeed subjective, and m= ost of the time we are thinking about an adjacent group. For example, whenever people say that "forges would improve stuff", my reply is (modulo phrasing) "yes, for the people who are already used to forges". Now, forges might indeed be familiar to many, but they would also braid more things together. You have to consider that when you're thinking about the tradeoffs you're making. >=20 > Aside from the commit message, I've largely solved my problems. I'm=20 > trying to advocate for others, and not just pull the ladder up behind > me. In the context of free software, sharing your ladders is typically a good idea. When you have a tool that helps you automate some task, you should at least put that tool somewhere. Even if we find that we can't automate the process in the general case (because there's a case your script doesn't consider), it will at least help some to see that you've already thought about X, Y and Z. > If Guix is for everyone, then we should do our best to ensure > everyone can contribute with the things they're skilled at. Sure. Now, about easy vs. simple > Rich is saying that there are intrinsic properties to approaches that > make them simple, but possibly not easy, and that we shouldn't rest > our arguments on claiming something is "easy", because that term is=20 > relative, and often related to familiarity. Familiarity is a hard > bias to overcome. >=20 > I'm here to discuss those intrinsic properties, the contributor=20 > experience, and see where that leads us. In my eyes, you have fallen victim to the easy vs. simple trap yourself, but again, it's easy to fall into and as Rich pointed out in fact a common misconception. So, rather than discussing these terms, please tell us what about the contributor experience is more complex than it needs to be and where applicable, how you would like to simplify it. Bear in mind, that contributing already has at least one degree of complexity baked right into itself on the basis of being a feedback loop. Cheers