[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: Concrete suggestions to improve Org mode third-party integration ::

From: Russell Adams
Subject: Re: Concrete suggestions to improve Org mode third-party integration :: an afterthought following Karl Voit's Orgdown proposal
Date: Mon, 6 Dec 2021 20:28:43 +0100

On Tue, Dec 07, 2021 at 02:47:28AM +0800, Timothy wrote:
> I have a few comments on your comments :)

To my esteemed colleague, I have a few comments for your comments on
my comments. ;]

> > How many syntax documents are we supposed to maintain outside of the working
> > implementation in Emacs and the manual?
> Just the one. I have some ideas on this that need to be written up, but I see
> this more as polishing our syntax specification such that it’s is more
> approachable for someone interested in supporting Org. IMO this leads to a
> syntax document which is just better, period.

I'm all for the idea of tightening up documentation to make Org a more
polished product. The issue is when the justification for that effort
is interoperability with tools outside Emacs.

> > Discussions are often fruitful for all involved and shouldn’t be a
> > problem when conducted in a respectful manner. Expect critical
> > opinions at times, but we should keep it civil.
> Indeed. I do find myself wishing that some discussions stayed more on-topic
> though…

My goal is to remind everyone that maintainer and coder time is a
scarce resource, and I'm very protective of asking them to commit to
anything. An indirect commitment can still feel like a commitment,
even if it's only implied by popular opinion and not agreed to.

As a free program with free and plain text results, anyone can code
anything they want to work with it. Asking Org volunteers to do
something outside the scope of Emacs should be critically examined
before we can justify asking for volunteer time. That doesn't mean
topics shouldn't be discussed, that discussion is the process of
critical examination. There's also plenty of room for "fluff", but not

For instance, Karl clearly spent a lot of time on his proposal. I
thought he was trying to clearly articulate issues from the recent
discussions regarding interoperability. I appreciate his efforts even
when I don't agree with every conclusion (I vote "Orgish"!). I wish I
knew enough about the underlying code to make an informed opinion so I
have abstained from on commenting on the details.

I don't have to agree or disagree with every point, I'm just watching
the debate and trying to place some gentle reminders in the discussion
to keep it civil and remember our volunteers are just that,

Russell Adams                            RLAdams@AdamsInfoServ.com

PGP Key ID:     0x1160DCB3           http://www.adamsinfoserv.com/

Fingerprint:    1723 D8CA 4280 1EC9 557F  66E8 1154 E018 1160 DCB3

reply via email to

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