Re: [ELPA] New package: dape

[Adam Porter]

Hi Eli,

> > 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.
>
> I very much doubt that authors feel this way, but even if they do,
> that feeling is unjustified, even if the 10 or 20 figures are correct >
> It should be abundantly clear that the authors have the last word on
> this.  How else can it be?  It is the author who contributes the
> package, so we have no means of forcing him or her to do anything they
> don't want.  Even suggesting that is an insult of sorts.
>
> I'm sorry, but these experiences are wrong, and I dare to say that
> posts like yours are at least one factor for these incorrect
> conclusions.
>
> Once again: there's no pressure, and there can be no pressure.  It's
> an illusion.

I understand and appreciate that no pressure is intended toward me or 
any other authors who submit their packages to ELPA, with regard to the 
name that is chosen for a package.

However, what I'm trying to say is that that intention is not always 
clearly communicated to the authors.  As well, observers also take note 
of these discussions, and from talking with some of them, it's not 
uncommonly interpreted as pressure--and that is, I think, to the 
detriment of ELPA's reputation (only my opinion, of course).

I've been using Emacs and participating in the wider community for a 
number of years now.  I have a decent understanding of the varying 
cultures and norms of emacs-devel, Reddit's Emacs-related subreddits, 
the "blogosphere," IRC/Matrix chat, etc.  I interact regularly with 
users who are new to Emacs, and users who are new to writing and 
contributing Elisp code and packages.  I've advised many of them, 
written my own Elisp packaging guide, etc.

And something I've observed is that people are often intimidated by 
emacs-devel, the ELPA submission process, etc.  That is not to say that 
they *should be* intimidated, but they are.  It often takes some 
encouraging to "get over the hump" and actually submit a package to ELPA.

So imagine being one of those authors, likely new to Elisp development, 
often not considering oneself to "really" be a "programmer" (even though 
they are), and presenting one's work in this "hallowed" place for 
evaluation by the legendary hackers and maintainers of Emacs (not that 
these hackers and maintainers view themselves that way).

When they reply asking that the package be renamed--and sometimes more 
than just asking or suggesting; sometimes the name is criticized as 
being unhelpful, and then it's even said that such names are harmful to 
Emacs and to users--well, I think it's easy for a contributor to 
interpret such replies as more than just asking or suggesting.

> There can always be a better name, all these considerations
> notwithstanding.  So we will continue asking authors to consider
> changing the names when the original name is far from being
> self-explanatory.  Once again, it is our _duty_, exactly as it's our
> duty to make sure the code's copyright is assigned to the FSF and that
> the code follows our coding conventions.  (The latter issues, btw, are
> much more significant contributors to "harming ELPA reputation".)

I wouldn't expect otherwise.  I would suggest only that you (or whoever 
asks) consider making the suggestion more gently (less as a criticism), 
and that it be made clear that the request is just a request, not a 
requirement to be met in order to proceed.  It seems common for an 
impression to be left that the package may be added after a consensus is 
reached on a name, which, as you said, isn't intended.

> Here's the text I posted in this particular case:
>
>   I wonder if you could come up with a name that tells something about
>   the package's purpose.  "plz-see" tells me "please see", and I don't
>   see any relation to HTTP, REST, pretty-printing, or popup buffers.
>
> Please tell me how is this anything but "a mere suggestion".

I should have been more clear: I did not write to criticize you, 
personally, but to discuss the general pattern I've observed from the 
replies on this list when packages are submitted (e.g. there being two 
such threads going on now).

> P.S. I took the liberty of removing addressees from the CC list and
> leaving on the mailing list, as I don't see the need to bother people
> personally, especially since all or almost all of them read this list
> anyway.

No objection here.  I was "replying to all" as I've seen you say several 
times that to do so is SOP here.  As well, I don't subscribe to the list 
myself, reading by other means.

Thanks,
Adam