Re: [ELPA] New package: dape

[Adam Porter]

Hello Eli,

> > Date: Sat, 4 Nov 2023 08:46:35 -0500 Cc: Dmitry Gutov 
> > <dmitry@gutov.dev>, John Yates <john@yates-sheets.org>, Krister 
> > Schuchardt <krister.schuchardt@gmail.com>, emacs-devel@gnu.org, 
> > philipk@posteo.net From: Adam Porter <adam@alphapapa.net>
> >
> > While friendly, gentle suggestions are ok, the pressure being put 
> > on authors in this process is unbecoming, to say the least.
>
> Please stop the insinuations.  There's no pressure.  We are asking 
> authors to consider changing the names, that's all; if they don't 
> agree, the issue is dropped on the floor.

I don't mean to insinuate.  I mean to share observations and 
experiences.  You and others may not intend to pressure authors, but 
when a thread bikeshedding a name goes on for 10 or 20 messages with 
numerous authors piling on their own hues, it can feel, to the author, 
like he is being pressured to change his mind, or that his contribution 
is being, well, taken away, to an extent.

This is especially so when it is not made clear, up front, that the 
author's decision will be accepted in the end, even if he politely 
declines to rename the library.

This is not only my own experience.  The way this issue recurs when 
packages are submitted is noticed in the wider community, and it harms 
GNU ELPA's reputation.  I report this observation with the intent to 
help, not to insinuate or insult.
> It is, after all, our prerogative and even our job, out of the wish 
> to serve our users better, to try to have packages with reasonably
> self-explanatory names where possible.

As I've said numerous times on this list, I agree with that principle.
> You don't have to like it, but at least please respect our views on
> that and our perspective. Your flat rejection of it is unbecoming, to
> say the least.

As I've said numerous times on this list, including in the past few 
days, I do not reject your view, flatly or otherwise.  Please don't 
misrepresent my view, either.

My view is that a name should be chosen with respect to various 
criteria; a name's being self-explanatory is one of them, but is not the 
only, nor even the highest, concern.

To try to make this message productive, I have a concrete suggestion: 
When a package is submitted to GNU ELPA, and it is suggested that the 
author consider renaming it, it should be made clear at the time that 
the suggestion is merely that, and that the author's final decision will 
be accepted.  That would likely help to defuse any feelings of pressure 
that might be felt as the discussion proceeds (and perhaps even make the 
author more receptive to suggestions).

Thanks,
Adam