Re: we now have "lilypond" organization on GitHub

[Joseph Rushton Wakeling]

On 24/09/13 20:16, David Kastrup wrote:
> Well, let's just say that our track record with "I'll contribute once
> everything is exactly like I want it, I could not expect to bother you
> with my help before" is not unlike that spelled out in Wilde's "The
> Devoted Friend" <URL:http://www.online-literature.com/wilde/176/>.

Hmm, I think you do me a _little_ injustice there. :-P  But thanks for reminding 
me about that story.  It's far too long since I last read it.

> If you already find the suggestion offensive of working yourself on your
> preferred way of contributing, that does not make for a very encouraging
> outlook regarding other contributions.

No, I don't find the suggestion offensive per se.  We came to it in a bad 
conversational context.

That said, I think I'd have reacted rather differently if you'd said something 
like, "Look, we'd love to see something better in place -- if you would like to 
try prototyping something or if you can point us to some examples of this 
working in practice we'd look at it with interest."

> There is some history to Graham saying "good!" for our current tools
> looking discouraging as indeed the complexity of working on LilyPond and
> its documentation system itself dwarves that of the contribution
> process, and so it's not necessarily ill intent that stops contributors
> short after the "VCS tool" hurdle has been placed aside.

Agreed, Lilypond is inherently complex to contribute to, but I don't think 
that's ever an argument for complex tools.  It feels a bit like saying that 
because rock climbing is inherently dangerous, no one should ever climb with 
ropes, because it'll stop the unskilled from trying to go to high ...

On the contrary, my feeling is that the more complex the project, the greater 
the need for tools that are easy and pleasurable to use, because people need 
their mental energy _for the project_.

I tend to find it a bit of a demotivator if a project is not strongly pro-active 
about ease of use both of their software and of their contribution mechanisms, 
because that usually means that there is tolerance of unnecessary (rather than 
necessary) difficulty, and that in turn means that often there are going to be 
unnecessary frustrations in getting things done.

> So don't worry about contributing only "nice and responsible".  After
> enough naughty and irresponsible contributions of code and
> documentation, people will be more willing to listen to suggestions how
> your contributions could be made involving less manual work by others.

I'll see what I can do. :-)