Re: Contributors and maintainers

[Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer]

Eli Zaretskii <address@hidden> writes:

>> From: address@hidden (Taylan Ulrich Bayırlı/Kammer)
>> Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2015 09:29:13 +0200
>> 
>> I provided clarification several times.  It was ignored.
>
> No, it was not ignored.  It was disagreed with, which is something
> entirely different.
>
>> One person got it and also repeated it in their words:
>> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs-devel/2015-10/msg01464.html
>
> After which I pushed a change that took care of the missing
> information.
>
>> And me again on the bug discussion:
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2015-10/msg00676.html
>> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/bug-gnu-emacs/2015-10/msg00698.html
>> 
>> That makes at least 7 times in which I repeated the same thing, and it
>> was ignored every time.
>
> No, it was not ignored.  It was repeatedly read, considered, and
> _disagreed_ with.
>
>> Some of those mails contain very detailed, careful explanations of the
>> issue, which I spent a lot of time on.  At least 2 or 3 are of that
>> nature.
>
> And it took me a similarly considerable amount of time to re-read the
> same explanations over and over again, and then provide a polite
> response.  All that because you completely refused to accept a simple
> comment that required you to make a change in a single line of code,
> so that your package will use a standard Emacs API.
>
>> I hope this makes it clear why I'm outraged.  When I say something like
>> "I repeated myself a dozen times and was ignored every time," the
>> "dozen" in that sentence is, by now, actually literal.  That's absurd.
>
> You were NOT ignored.
>
>> What I gather from being persistently ignored is that I'm receiving
>> absolutely *no* respect *at all* from most people here.  That is the one
>> and only reason I would start losing respect towards others.  The
>> detailed and polite explanations of my problem listed above hopefully
>> give a hint on which way the lack of respect primarily goes.
>
> There's no disrespect, there never was.  Respecting an opinion does
> not mean it must be accepted.  Rejecting an opinion or a patch doesn't
> mean disrespect, it just means disagreement, in this case on purely
> technical grounds.
>
>> The lack of respect I'm receiving is *not* of the kind where someone is
>> being actively nasty, insulting, etc.  It's a kind where a person's very
>> voice is being denied, not even countered.  That's pretty grave.
>
> We should be allowed to disagree and reject patches even if there are
> no insults or obnoxious behavior on the part of the person who offers
> an opinion or a patch.  Patches and opinions can be rejected on purely
> technical grounds, not only on the grounds of nasty conduct.
>
> IOW, we are not obliged to automatically accept patches just because
> their submitter is well behaved.  We actually try to ignore his/her
> behavior as best as we can, and consider the patches only on technical
> merits.

(Trying to respond to all of the above as briefly as I can.)

Can you please show a previous quote by you which serves to show that
you understood the reason I did not want to use shell-quote-argument,
and where you directly addressed that exact reason (either with a change
to shell-quote-argument, *or* an explanation of why you disagree with
that exact reason)?

When you show such a quote, then maybe we can look at it and see how it
could be that you feel my concern has been addressed, yet I don't.

>> I doubt most people who come to contribute code have much motivation to
>> work out basic social issues.  My feedback is probably the best you will
>> get, and I'm not saying it's good at all.
>
> You are wrong.  People do provide useful feedback here about these
> issues.  Just yesterday we had such feedback from Óscar Fuentes.

Point.  That was pretty good feedback.

>> Most others will just leave the place immediately, or not even try
>> because they already saw in the archive or heard from others enough
>> horrible things about emacs-devel.
>
> From whom did you hear horrible things about emacs-devel?  What
> horrible things?

It would be bad to name them, but emacs-devel has become a running joke
among some groups which contain experienced programmers and long-timers
of GNU and Emacs, as well as young folks who could be future Emacs
developers.

I would love it if this could change, and if both those experienced
people and potential future developers could partake in emacs-devel.

Taylan