emacs-devel etiquette (was: Re: On the popularity of git)

[Stephen Leake]

John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:

>>>>>> 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.

(note that I changed the subject :)

> 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.

I have stopped reading emacs-devel on occasion for similar reasons; it
was too hard to find the useful messages (I use Gnus).

> 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.

+1

> 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.

Welcome aboard!

-- 
-- Stephe