|
From: | Adam Porter |
Subject: | Re: My resignation from Emacs development |
Date: | Tue, 26 Nov 2024 20:18:17 -0600 |
User-agent: | Mozilla Thunderbird |
Christopher, On 11/26/24 13:51, Christopher Dimech wrote:
In the matter of blaming maintainers for decisions - whether directly or indirectly - the question of whether maintainers should be allowed to break their own rules is critical. A compelling case exists that they should. Strict adherence to lengthy review periods or consensus-building processes is often impractical, especially in situations where only maintainers possess the necessary expertise to advance the program. Maintainers breaking their own rules represents a pragmatic approach, prioritizing progress and functionality over rigid adherence to dogmatic processes. This flexibility ensures that the project continues to evolve and adapt to its challenges.
You seem to imply that some kind of rule-breaking has happened. I don't think this is so--unless the rule were "No one may make any change unless everyone agrees to it." The technical matters in question have been thoroughly discussed. A change was made. The maintainers support it (in absence of a better solution, which they have not found). One contributor refuses to tolerate it--regrettable, but solely his decision to make. There's little else--factually--to say.
That said, while maintainers must retain the ability to make such decisions - even if they sometimes result in dissent or theYou seem to imply some kind of secrecy is involved. Everything I see indicates the opposite: lengthy, public discussions, long-considered but finally needed decisions, and further lengthy, public discussions (with unfairly implied chastisement of the maintainers for implied secrecy). One could hardly find a more transparently run project.departure of contributors - there is a clear responsibility to avoid fostering a culture of arbitrary rule-breaking. Transparency, accountability, and judicious use of this authority are essential to maintain the integrity of the program, especially in a collaborative environment heavily reliant on contributor involvement.
You even mention integrity, as if to suggest that the maintainers' is in question. Please be careful that your words don't imply criticism where none is deserved.
--Adam
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |