Re: New maintainer

[Karl Fogel]

John, your points below are a continuation of a very interesting tactical (and 
philosophical) debate... that was already held on this list fairly recently, 
and that eventually went somewhat off-topic for this list even then :-).

While the questions you raise are worth discussing for the GNU project as a 
whole, I think Richard has made it clear that the position of the FSF regarding 
Emacs' development priorities is definitely not going to be changed as part of 
this new maintainer discussion.

So if at this point you were to say that, as far as being an Emacs maintainer 
goes, you understand and are willing to abide by the priorities Richard has 
articulated, even though you disagree with them, that would settle an important 
question.  Or if you don't think you can abide by them, in your work as 
maintainer, that would be useful to know too (though it would probably result 
in you not being the maintainer).

As you know, I hope you can abide by them and be the maintainer (or a 
co-maintainer) because I think you'd be terrific at it.  But it's your call.  I 
merely urge clarity; Richard has made his position clear, so if you do too then 
things can move forward one way or the other.

Best,
-K

John Wiegley <address@hidden> writes:
>Hi Richard,
>
>Thank you for the clarification, the picture is becoming much clearer. I
>really appreciate the time you've taken to reiterate these positions for the
>millionth time.
>
>There is one point I am having a hard time with. I'm feeling as though my
>Emacs experience (as a user) is being sacrificed at someone else's altar.
>
>The idea, if I understand it, is that you don't want Emacs' C++ support to
>allow Clang to beat GCC, because then people would naturally choose Clang who
>care more about getting things done, than they do about software freedom. In
>effect, Emacs is being used to keep people within the free software agenda, by
>making Clang no more appealing than GCC.
>
>This troubles me. I can see that for you, the freedom idea is much more
>important than the technical idea. You'd rather we stick with GCC until the
>cows come home, so long as it leads to a freer world.
>
>Meanwhile, there are those among us who don't share your ideals to the same
>extent. We'd prefer an editor that lets us get things done faster, better,
>leaving us with free time to... produce more free software.
>
>I can't help but think that unless the FSF has more to offer than its ideals,
>its technical decisions are going to render it obsolete. Progress waits for no
>man, and the world is changing more and more rapidly. There is a reason Clang
>is eating GCC's lunch: because the needs of a larger community demand a better
>free compiler.
>
>Emacs is still a fantastic editor, but it's old and its age is showing. If we
>remain competitive, it could stay awesome for another 30 years; but if we
>avoid progress to further non-technical agendas, I think it will drive people
>AWAY from the GNU project, not bind them more tightly to it.
>
>John