Re: follow-up to report 22

[Carl Sorensen]

On 11/5/10 9:37 AM, "Valentin Villenave" <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Carl Sorensen <address@hidden> wrote:
>> As far as I know, I'm not a member of -hackers.  I get a not-found error
>> whenever I click on any of the links.
>> 
>> I don't have any emails from -hackers in my inbox or saved mails.  I don't
>> have -hackers in my Contacts list.  So I'm not part of the in-crowd in this
>> discussion.
> 
> Oh. Then please accept my apologies.

No apology necessary.  But your apology is accepted.

> I assumed you were because, in a
> private conversation I had with Graham (which I'm sure he'll forgive
> me for quoting), he referred to -hackers as "a private+archived
> mailing list for extremely well-known developers like Han-Wen, Jan,
> me, Carl, and Neil".
> 
> By the way, I didn't want to raise the question of the criteria, but I
> am bound to wonder why it is that you are not a member of this list.

I'm certain that the reason I'm not on the list is because the list is in
total disarray.  I read Graham's original email as a request to put it in
array and use it properly[1]

1. <http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/lilypond-devel/2010-09/msg00178.html>

[...]

> (Since I do know John, I also know how unfair what I've just said is:
> although he hasn't been doing *visible* work on LilyPond, he's
> actually been spending all this time working on something that will be
> of great help to us when he unveils it. But I hope I've made my point:
> where to draw the line between people deemed worthy of the -hackers
> list and other people?)

I'm sure this will be an item of discussion once we move onto the GOP.

>> I'm trying to recognize this issue as a real issue, but one that would be
>> better discussed at a specific time in the future.
> 
> I understand better now what you had in mind. As you may have
> understood, I have a hard time not interpreting things as "go play
> with your pointless doc-patches and let the grown-ups do serious 2.14
> business". I never actually thought you could be implying such a
> thing, but the mere fact that it crossed my mind illustrates how I am
> feeling (and have been for some time) towards the development team: I
> am obviously on edge.

Yes, I have seen that you are on edge.  And that concerns me, because I see
you as a real contributor to LilyPond.  I'm glad that you pushed forward on
the /language issue, because the resolution we finally got to was a definite
improvement in LilyPond.  But it took more time than you really wanted to
spend on it.  And I could see your frustration.  I was trying to encourage
you, without bossing you around.  I'm sure that we can continue to work
together on a basis of mutual respect.

> 
>> I have reread that email.  It asks for a lot of work to be done relative to
>> the -hackers list.  But the hope is to figure out what the hackers list is
>> and how we use it formally in the GOP, after 2.14 is out, instead of right
>> now.
> 
> I'm not sure about the amount of work and discussions implied, but I
> do trust your judgement on that.
> 
>> Would such a patch be helpful?
> 
> LGTM :-)

As I've thought about it, I think I'll move the patch from the website to
the Contributors' Guide, as you previously expressed.  But the content will
be basically the same.

> 
> By all accounts, I wish someone from -hackers had proposed this patch
> (or better yet, a more informative one?) instead of you. Rather than
> dismissing every possible concerns altogether, it would have been much
> appreciated if someone had simply thrown us a bone, e.g. a list of
> names and/or informal criteria and/or some background, history about
> this list, the why, the how, the when etc.

I see several challenges associated with producing a more informative patch
at this time:

1) -hackers is mostly abandoned right now, so it serves no current function.

2) Any description of the history may be irrelevant to the future

3) Nobody knows right now exactly how -hackers *should* be organized, and it
would take discussion time to come to agreement.

4) The people who are best-equipped to document the history are the very
people who are most needed to resolve the Critical issues and get 2.14 out
 
Given all of these things, and the desire to get 2.14 out, I can't justify
spending more time on documenting -hackers than I've already spent.  The
concern is just not high enough *to me* to be worth your time.

But it appears to be more important to you.  And that's why I made my
comment about you producing a patch -- not so that you could go play in the
corner with unimportant patches, but so that you could address an issue that
was important *to you*.  Again, I'm sorry if this behavior was offensive
toward you.

> 
> I obviously hurt Graham's feeling, which was certainly not what I was
> aiming for, but I do hope we can work together and put an end to this
> situation (and again: like David, I am not referring to the division
> between people who are subscribed to -hackers and other people, but
> between those who "know" about it and those who do not).

I'm positive that we can put an end to the division between people who know
about -hackers and those who do not, by making the existence of -hackers
public knowledge.

Thanks,

Carl