emacs-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: My resignation from Emacs development


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 the
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 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.

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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]