From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mp12.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:478a::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by ms9.migadu.com with LMTPS id GK74LOtV+GTeZQEAauVa8A:P1 (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 12:35:23 +0200 Received: from aspmx1.migadu.com ([2001:41d0:403:478a::]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits)) by mp12.migadu.com with LMTPS id GK74LOtV+GTeZQEAauVa8A (envelope-from ) for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 12:35:23 +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 8E968ED28 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2023 12:35:23 +0200 (CEST) Authentication-Results: aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=KXQlX3Be; 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=1693996523; 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=xe885tqNXAe/qcYHHDW4L9I4+BD3dD7JJsBSfPrrP9U=; b=B6B0lk/qHWM+qNrE6TjUSrfWxQ5k3WbuShkZ91mp6mFrboeJQyg98Lw1GwRB4mtUef/rAs 5UWg1OXsbSZ33jZML7N5oBeCHHciCmXRFCIi+ASY+X2icx4oVThfQPxtX0H7GJ8Yt31MP7 wjQu3aP6kCMW2Srcercy7wBVH7bcQ2YbNkLVgE2bo+jDDMy1OPan5eK6Ggb4XG2D83Ko4V 3R2hifB6+D/+SSCJZ6/nCWFjmjmtxSiNGYU9PgIkqIdy0s9BoS9tajDHkf16HVhFb59sx8 3iW2WqjaYXMsUUZP7HLulzU/eJBXFCnpTQYmG1DR2zO+knzDh/hp/CVKrINpoA== ARC-Seal: i=1; s=key1; d=yhetil.org; t=1693996523; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; b=kgRlUVf1pQG2DFNpVrdzfB8Q00Isv5TSn7Qa4waQSTTvL8zUyQlRlLlJWMvHiLqkwo4rTN KjGEHkSAfJZfGlchzra4mkBBMAB/qfrUeJ92Dfe2N5GJ2AYCJzdDJekw418H5svFslwNrT hgXc9RF5l5wXT7kaJXB1P95uLpi2bg077JChTWzzPwxmNFXYy7TLAuvgPIHjK0fE0WWbgR ft+etN0/HiSbFso7QvL+b5IMqbwFqUvEsDt5xd+2aLuqIbZE6Yz8eSXD9AS+b2OCabvrms Cbvk8HA3t1mkz+3OJseKPSVt5WuVTqPik/AkYNf4tWXVswndWrHaIlSoyAknug== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; aspmx1.migadu.com; dkim=pass header.d=gmail.com header.s=20221208 header.b=KXQlX3Be; 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 Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qdprq-0004Jx-Ry; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 06:34:38 -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 1qdpro-0004Fj-CV for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 06:34:36 -0400 Received: from mail-wm1-x332.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::332]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qdprl-0004Jp-6m for guix-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 06:34:35 -0400 Received: by mail-wm1-x332.google.com with SMTP id 5b1f17b1804b1-401314e7838so9014895e9.1 for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 03:34:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20221208; t=1693996471; x=1694601271; darn=gnu.org; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=xe885tqNXAe/qcYHHDW4L9I4+BD3dD7JJsBSfPrrP9U=; b=KXQlX3BeEKNcUGPSyxGsHj7/l9z08aSBsSs9TziHAjcA7zkfLIjhomdU5xAIrZmkCz 5RStinRSYCN2jpvq5OZC8y4X7ijgRs6YLc+epjbjQlEpmjeULdlkcjq1KjFyoBcVimbx m5pPfaI7//snH0rRWBooZRezYt+HbYJnLBPzxQTkvoCrdyg3Yw+YcXNLYfDF5pzQtZu5 dHD46VGc4SKYtsAcJRmV3moCb8UpIsxN7rPEHjiPauBnTE8N/6ih+G3Fb3qx9h9DT9Ba UGtQFYLHaZlsxNmEry4geDxwsh0YGvPKpWKbdSNgULCmk0iJo25/Abw4je7jwc3UNhRA l7GQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20221208; t=1693996471; x=1694601271; h=content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:message-id:date:references :in-reply-to:subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=xe885tqNXAe/qcYHHDW4L9I4+BD3dD7JJsBSfPrrP9U=; b=CvG9J1XcIR+Km5HkLEPX+DmoDQRlV8cqzfV/enNKM+k7t0A4oVaUnJWvD5d8zpxLtC 18Nx1TNFudHrHKfHCffkqo594MA9OEwpVF9Z/2XjZHocWsCMC7yqfZwwLouub0XCz/Hc 6//XiVClMjbVTTm/gc6/SpB6Ve/RogvQG75vFtgPb/aaMSUQe1C04bHe8+/ZG2rwBpJ4 2DAD8SuMWyRTPpsAw6S+qZf6VysBhuUECeNazqPNeGYjfwqFQoXPTE7j/G4waftmtOur kERR21hefS5EjhSqGd37xBE3t45O+T1wYJpZDFxFL1g3WFDYzf0cHYmBAWiBdvwfrNN5 /NyA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0Yxs5bqdcclimQ8RUW5gH5utDvFdsVNgGGNh0eAU/OuyHUXrWcXr 94jP47SWDhTMnfYxpi8JpAilSpLrN/c= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IHJBSDIL0TWpLfhasOOloka++XNG87N38NfcLIfTlcQFdVFFp98BpW9B/lKl2UJEubMesQeuw== X-Received: by 2002:a05:600c:3b25:b0:3ff:8617:672b with SMTP id m37-20020a05600c3b2500b003ff8617672bmr12658399wms.2.1693996470866; Wed, 06 Sep 2023 03:34:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lili ([2a01:e0a:59b:9120:65d2:2476:f637:db1e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r16-20020a05600c299000b00400268671c6sm19282000wmd.13.2023.09.06.03.34.29 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 06 Sep 2023 03:34:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Simon Tournier To: Katherine Cox-Buday , Maxim Cournoyer , Saku Laesvuori Cc: Attila Lendvai , Liliana Marie Prikler , Andreas Enge , "Felix Lechner via Development of GNU Guix and the GNU Systemtdistribution." Subject: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? In-Reply-To: References: <20230827135726.y33t55w4cvq6zsvb@X-kone> <874jkift8v.fsf@gmail.com> <867cp4sj7k.fsf@gmail.com> <38242808-2f06-4674-3842-aea1a5378d05@gmail.com> <86v8cop6sy.fsf@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 06 Sep 2023 11:07:43 +0200 Message-ID: <8634zrpt40.fsf@gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::332; envelope-from=zimon.toutoune@gmail.com; helo=mail-wm1-x332.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-Country: US X-Migadu-Flow: FLOW_IN X-Migadu-Scanner: mx0.migadu.com X-Migadu-Spam-Score: -7.09 X-Spam-Score: -7.09 X-Migadu-Queue-Id: 8E968ED28 X-TUID: EhhqVBnn0DYl Hi Katherine, ( I feel we are not able to communicate on commit message format and it seems we are on a road that leads to unfruitful output. Well, I appreciate the discussion and I have carefully read the messages. ) On Tue, 05 Sep 2023 at 20:34, Katherine Cox-Buday wrote: > For whatever else has been brought up in this thread, I started with this: > > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 I have given a list of issues to a group of people wh= o are presumably > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 analytical, and I think the natural inclination is to= go=20 > point-by-point and > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 make arguments for/against. Instead of that[*], I inv= ite you to=20 > address the > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 more abstract issue: (should/how do) we reduce fricti= on for making > =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 contributions? I agree with this, even if maybe I am misread. For me, the reduction of the friction for making contributions means the identification of such friction. Once the friction area are identified, it leads to an estimation about the order of magnitude of such friction compared to all the other frictions. As you said, we are all different, thus it means that any collaboration cannot be full-frictionless. Because any social interaction implies norms and standards. Norms and standards are by their definition excluding. For example, we communicate in English. It appears to me impossible to send a contribution without having some basic knowledge of English. How do I know that the English I wrote in the docstring, or in the comments of code, or the name of the procedures, or in the commit message, etc. how do I know that English is meeting the standard? There is an expectation about the English we are using for communicating and that expectation is complicated enough that it=E2=80=99s easy to get it wrong. = What is the thing that will tell me that the English I wrote is not meeting the standard? Why do we accept this =E2=80=9Cfriction=E2=80=9D about English filtering pe= ople? Well, I am stretching a bit to make my point. :-) I am trying to say that not all frictions are equal. We collectively must do our best to the reach equity, sure. That=E2=80=99s said, we are ha= ckers and so we are improving what we are considering the most annoying. You find that running many commands for contributing is annoying so you are trying to fix it. I find some behaviour of =E2=80=9Cguix time-machine=E2= =80=9D annoying so I am trying to fix it. Etc. The path for improving starts by making apparent to all the annoyance, then optionally propose something =E2=80=93 = best if one hopes the annoyance will be fixed :-) =E2=80=93 and last the annoyan= ce is reduced for all when some proposal convinces folks. My points are: 1. thanks to all people for sharing their feedback 2. the discussion is pointing many ideas that are actionable 3. the discussion is also pointing friction that does not appear to me being actionable > In the US, the phrase "I don't buy it" is usually the response to=20 > someone trying to trick you into something. This is a little hurtful=20 > because it's either saying: Sorry, it was not my intent. I was expressing: I do not believe it is *the* real problem. >> Well, I share various points that had been raised in this thread about >> smoothing the contribution requirements. However, I am still puzzled by >> the comments about the commit message format. Again, my inability to >> understand the issue does not mean I am not hearing. > > Communication is so hard. My only advice is to remain aware that=20 > everyone in the world is different, and that even when we don't=20 > understand something, or don't experience it ourselves, that doesn't=20 > make it less real, especially if there's a plurality of people agreeing=20 > with one another. And to always choose kindness. I hope that I am demonstrating to always choose kindness. Well, if we do not have a common understanding about something, then we cannot communicate about this something, IMHO. Sharing a common understanding about something is a core principle to establish communication and collaboration. If group A says =E2=80=99foo=E2=80=99 and group B does not understand =E2= =80=99foo=E2=80=99, this =E2=80=99foo=E2=80=99 is real for group A but is it real for group B? Group A and group B needs to have a common understanding about =E2=80=99foo=E2=80=99 in order t= o agree on how to deal with =E2=80=99foo=E2=80=99. My messages in this thread show, I hope, that I am taking seriously this discussion. I am doing my best to be empathetic and I am considering all the concerns. However, raising a concern does not make it real or automatically equal with all the others. ( Do not take me wrong, I am not saying that for example commit message format could not be a real friction for some people, I am sure it is; as using in English is a real friction for some people. Instead, I am saying that I fail to get why is it or what makes this commit message format a real problem. ) > Here is a great talk by Rich Hickey called "Simple Made Easy". Although=20 > I recommend watching the entire thing, I'd like to draw your attention=20 > to a few points: Thanks for this pointer, I already knew it. Yeah, that=E2=80=99s a good ta= lk. Maybe my first reply was a kind of unconscious digest of this. ;-) Well, I have just watched it again. :-) > - Easy is relative: https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?t=3D497 Somehow, that=E2=80=99s the remark by Liliana [1], Maybe it's time to take a step back and instead of asking =E2=80=9C= How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?=E2=80=9D, we shou= ld perhaps ask =E2=80=9CFor which contributors do we want to/can we decrease t= he cognitive overhead?=E2=80=9D which is another way, IMHO, to express what I have tried to say with =E2=80=9Crange of contributions=E2=80=9D in my first message [2]. > - Differentiating the types of complexity (importantly defining=20 > incidental complexity): https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?t=3D1173 It appears to me that it is also what I have tried to say in my very first message [2]. :-) Well, from my point of view, we are using here the term =E2=80=9Cco= ntribution=E2=80=9D as it was one homogeneous thing. Instead, I think the term refers = to a range with a gradual complexity. And the improvements or tools may= be also need to be gradual depending on this range. > The crucial point of this talk for me is when Rich draws an analogy to=20 > juggling (https://youtu.be/SxdOUGdseq4?t=3D1353). He poses the question:= =20 > you can juggle a finite number of balls; how many of those do you want=20 > to be incidental complexity balls vs. problem complexity balls. In the=20 > Guix world, how many of our balls do we want to be the meta of=20 > contributing vs. actual code checked into Guix? So yeah, I am definitely on that page. :-) I am sorry if you have not felt that I am aligned since my very first message [2]. Well, now re-reading my first message, I feel I am repeating myself so I move to other topics. Thank you for opening the discussion and I am convinced that this fruitful discussion will have a positive output reducing the current friction for contributing. Cheers, simon 1: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? Liliana Marie Prikler Tue, 05 Sep 2023 22:43:04 +0200 id:3b274703acaf446ec678e96c9d875c5d6b1a3e17.camel@gmail.com https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-09 https://yhetil.org/guix/3b274703acaf446ec678e96c9d875c5d6b1a3e17.camel@gmai= l.com 2: Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors? Simon Tournier Thu, 24 Aug 2023 20:53:14 +0200 id:871qfsuvad.fsf@gmail.com https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guix-devel/2023-08 https://yhetil.org/guix/871qfsuvad.fsf@gmail.com