Re: "Open records", "good government principles", "corporate culture"

[Jean Louis]

* Boruch Baum <boruch_baum@gmx.com> [2020-12-10 09:41]:
> From the recent thread "non-gnu elpa issue tracking"
> 
> On 2020-12-09 23:35, Richard Stallman wrote:
> >   > 2) The acceptance or candidacy process for each package should be
> >   >    documented in some discrete method.
> >
> > Whether to have a certain package in NonGNU ELPA could be a touchy
> > question, in some borderline cases.  Stating the reasons could perhaps
> > hurt feelings, or lead to arguments.  So it is best not to do that.
> > We will add a package or we won't.

I could understand that point in different way then you got it. I
think no need for offense here. 

It is trivial to make one's own ELPA, and I consider doing so for the
sake of simplicity and re-using configurations in a speedy manner
without confusing my team members. When I would be doing that I could
keep the private ELPA on Internet even make it available to others,
but I would not need to explain nothing. If I would explain it, it
would cause people to comment back and argue about my decisions. For
person like me such discussions are of no significance but for larger
group of developers they may become.

Look at the Github, when somebody wish to fork a package, they just
click and do. Finished there. No discussion, nothing. i do not see any
bad intentions there. Those repositories are not comparable and
non-GNU ELPA has different purposes then some general package
repositories. I see the purpose in enhancement of the default Emacs.
Packages are not part of Emacs but become available in the same free
software spirit by default.

Emacs maintainers due to its experience and analytical capabilities
may then decide what would package would be useful to enhance Emacs by
including it in non-GNU ELPA as well. Now imagine 500 discussions for
500 packages not included x 5 comments minimum. 

Software authors may propose package to be included in GNU ELPA just
as usual.

All those are my personal opinions. I see nothing wrong.

> Implicit in the paragraph, I read:
> 
>   4) Fear of accountability;

Quite contrary, I see the sense to accountability and sense to
responsibility towards us as users and future users. We have just been
discussing packages that are public domain but not CC0. Obviously such
public domain packages are not acceptable. If package is useful
developers can still ask the author to re-license it at least to CC0
license. The care to include or not include package that is in other
jurisdiction but US probably proprietary is transparent here on the
mailing list, and also shows accountability.

As it is general rule to include GPL compatible software, that rule
alone is transparent and made public and shows accountability. 

>   5) Insecurity and feelings of weakness;

For this I have no idea, as I cannot see your viewpoint. I wish I could.

>   6) Unwilling to establish boundaries;

For that I see it quite contrary, there are free software boundaries,
aren't they? 

>   7) Passive aggression;

Sorry, I cannot see that, it is harder for me to get into that viewpoint.

> However, for any professional environment in either the public or
> private sector (of the "developed Western secular" world)... Should I
> care? I'm an outsider to the emacs/GNU/FSF development team, but when I
> read that paragraph, many frustrating interactions that I've had with
> the several of the emacs team made a lot more sense.

But let us look at purposes. What is good is that we help each other.
I think it is great. Sometimes in discussing things it can be
frustrating. But one has to look at intentions of both parties as
those intentions are almost always good, and intention is to help each
other. 

My experience is that, to me several major bugs have been solved that
enabled me to use Emacs to speed up my management. I look at those
assistances as valuable. It is impossible for every human interaction
to result positively for all parties. Otherwise they would not be
discussing it.

Jean