Re: On the popularity of git

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Jay Belanger <address@hidden> writes:

> Not wanting to read all of emacs-devel would be a strange reason to leave
> the list; it isn't a read-it-all or read-none-of-it type deal. I can think
> of a lot of reasons why someone might write less on emacs-devel. Where did
> he give his reasons?

I'm not sure why Glenn left, but here's an example of what some of us are
referring to: In the "IDE" discussion that took place a while back, I was
actively engaged in discussing ideas with several individuals. Meanwhile, a
sub-thread began (without changing the subject) that starting talking solely
about CEDET development. That sub-thread is still ongoing to this day.

Because of that sub-thread, it was necessary to scan every message just to
determine which messages titled "IDE" were part of the discussion I was
having, and which titled "IDE" had nothing to do with it.

At one point I was wading through 5-20 messages a day, looking for needles in
a haystack. This became tiresome enough that I stopped paying active attention
to the thread. I kept deferring my "winnowing" until later and later in the
day, and at some point told Gnus to stop showing "IDE" messages altogether --
possibly missing out on meaningful additions to the discussion.

This induces needless inertia into the medium. For those of us whose mail
readers do not easily silence threads, there is a similar inertia involved in
skipping past lots of messages that are largely irrelevant.

This sort thing happens a *lot*; maybe without the participants even realizing
it, because it has become so common-place. Multiply this many times over, plus
a need to get as much done as possible within a limited amount of time, and
perhaps you begin to see the problem.

In the future, I think it has come time to establish a Code of Conduct, along
with a transition to a passively moderated list: one where all posts are
allowed by default, but those who disregard the CoC will lose their right to
post until the end of a waiting period.

I appreciate that some do not see this as a problem or disagree with my
assessment (Hi, Juanma, thanks for your support btw :). But needless to say, I
know of several people (personally, in meat-space) who do not participate here
because of these problems, and I'm willing to make some changes to bring these
people back into the fold.

For the purposes of Emacs development (aka, emacs-devel), I would much rather
have a semi-professional atmosphere focused on improving Emacs, than an
easy-going social atmosphere focused on eloquent debates. That belongs on
another list -- and in fact, creation of just such a list is in process and
will be announced by Richard or myself shortly.

For those who've actually read to the end of this message: Richard and I met
at MIT yesterday, where I officially accepted the role as maintainer of Emacs.
An announcement is forthcoming, once we dot the i's and cross the t's. It's
also why I've switched my subscription address to address@hidden, and would
appreciate if Emacs-related issues are sent there, rather than to my other
accounts.

Toward a better future, and much happy hacking!
  John Wiegley