Re: How can we decrease the cognitive overhead for contributors?

[Katherine Cox-Buday]

On 9/8/23 6:40 AM, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
> Ricardo,
>
> Ricardo Wurmus <rekado@elephly.net> writes:
>
> > Giovanni,
> >
> > > You are obviously free not to contribute your patches upstream but the
> > > fact that you decided not to because it's "too hard" (my executive
> > > summary about your complaints about Change Log content rules) to write
> > > commit messages suitable for contribution it _not_ a Guix maintainers
> > > fault, not at all.
> >
> > As a former Guix co-maintainer I disagree with this take.  (Nobody even
> > brought up the word “fault”, which is a particularly unhelpful lens for
> > understanding social issues, in my opinion.)
>
> sorry for using "fault", I can't find a better term
>
> > “too hard” sounds (perhaps unintentionally) derisive.
>
> the complete sentence is: «"too hard" (my executive summary about your
> complaints about Change Log content rules)»
>
> what can I add about my intentions?
>
> [...]
>
> > It’s not that writing commit messages is hard.  It’s one of many
> > obstacles,
>
> IMO one of the very little ones

Taking a single step is trivial. Walking a thousand miles is difficult. 
The aggregate is the thing that matters most!

And these are subjective statements, which are bad to rest decisions on. 
I have the opinion that this style of commit message is difficult and 
doesn't have a lot of value; others think it's easy and find a lot of 
value in it.

I don't place much emphasis on my opinion or others' on this, but I 
place an enormous emphasis on the existence of the two groups. We should 
be curious why the two groups hold their opinions, and curious about a 
mutual path forward.

Instead of setting up camp and throwing rocks, let's share a meal and 
create a better way for everyone.

> > We can’t blame anyone for seeing these two piles and come to the
> > conclusion that it’s not worth the hassle — especially when operating
> > your own channel is so easy in comparison.
>
> I'm not blaming Katherine, I respect her decision; I just wanted to say:
> please don't blame the guidelines about ChangeLog for the two (or more)
> piles.

No hard feeling, Gio. I want to echo what Ricardo is saying: viewing 
these conversations through the lens of blame and fault is not the 
intent, and is not helpful. In my original message I intentionally said 
that this was not a list of grievances, but an attempt to describe the 
"shape" of the problem.

While I do search for root-causes to issues, it's not done with the 
intent to cast blame on something. It's done with curiosity, and the 
desire to make the situation better for everyone.