[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       mutt-dev
Subject:    Re: The future of mutt... - intermediate aggregation
From:       Oswald Buddenhagen <ossi () kde ! org>
Date:       2013-11-07 8:47:01
Message-ID: 20131107084701.GC27890 () ugly ! local
[Download RAW message or body]

On Mon, Nov 04, 2013 at 11:22:51AM +0100, jpacner@redhat.com wrote:
> > try more context. hint: it's a response to what *you* wrote.
> 
> Well, it seems we both have no idea if some of mutt devs are paid or
> not, so let's move to the next point :).
> 
actually, i'm pretty confident that none are. that's the basis of the
whole argument.

> > obviously.
> > i'll point out that we were talking about the motivation to polish
> > patches.
> > so how exactly can you deduce from the trac activity how these people
> > would respond to a relaxed commit policy?
> 
> From experience - mutt is a mature product for "power geeks". I suppose
> nobody who supplied some patch to track is a beginner and therefore
> there is a high probability they would do the same work as just up until
> now. They have no reason to lower their effort
>
from my experience, people without maintainership ambitions simply adapt
to lower standards.

> but quite the opposite ("Wow, I can play more integral role in mutt
> project, let's do my work better!").
> 
they could already do that, by reviewing each other's work and otherwise
building an active community. they are not.

> > and who makes these decisions? you eliminated the maintainers' authority
> > over that branch.
> 
> Actually I didn't - someone is always a maintainer of the repository
> itself. As for the question about making decisions, KISS suggests me to
> send an email to mutt-dev list stating that "I'm against that particular
> change because of blabla... This discussion will be evaluated exactly in
> 2 weeks from now.". The repository maintainer then (after the 2 weeks)
> gathers the responses and without any further questioning will act
> accordingly. In the meantime anything might happen (changes in that
> patch, some deep or flat discussion, voting, whatever...).
> 
so you replaced the maintainers by a moderator, and the process is
supposed to be entirely democratic.
well. dream on.

> >> [...] Don't forget, time matters and what most mutt users expected 7
> >> years ago must not be valid today. [...]
> >>
> > that's a tad cynical, huh? "those who are *still* around obviously don't
> > care".
> 
> This is a new idea to me - thank you for pointing it out. If you came up
> with it yourself, maybe it reflects your inner feelings/attitudes...
> 
then maybe you should explain what you meant? thinking it through
properly?

> > you should read http://catb.org/~esr/writings/homesteading/homesteading/
> > for a primer on the (unwritten) rules by which most hackers tick (more or
> > less).
> 
> Are you sure the mutt community acts more or less according to
> survey/description from 1998-2000?
> 
as that's about the time i joined the oss community, i can confirm that
esr's essay is still pretty much spot-on. in fact, it would be kinda
weird if hackers suddenly changed in the last 15 years.

the dynamics change significantly if you are dealing with code monkeys
(hired people who really couldn't care less for what they are doing),
but luckily there is still only few of them in the oss world.

> As I'm bold, I would say no :) according to my experience from different
> places I've worked in and with many different people there.
> 
maybe you just didn't look closely enough, or didn't think very hard
about what you are seeing. or you are in denial and are rationalizing
your observations, which is a pretty common reaction when people are
uncomfortable with the only logical conclusion the evidence allows.

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]