Luc Teirlinck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > David Kastrup wrote: > > Since both of these suggestions would be a change with regard > to 21.4, if there is any contention about them (except maybe for > better proposals for the "All Options" menu), we should rather drop > them instead of wasting time discussing them, if the advantages are > not seen as clearcut as I imagine. > > They are not as clearcut as you imagine.
Then they are off my agenda for 22.1. I sometimes wish that we had appointed or elected "dictators" for specific subsystems of Emacs: it is clear that unilateral agreement is very hard to achieve, and so we'd probably get more things achieved with less quibbling if people could just present their case without catering for all other proposals, and then one person who is generally trusted in that respect (and can be replaced in that function if people agree) makes the call. We'd probably achieve something a bit closer to coherency with less total investment of time and nerves that way. Of course Richard fills in some of that space, but given his intermittent access and numerous other chores, the current situation still lends itself to too much arguing which in the end achieves less with probably a higher total frustration level than if somebody was declared responsible for decisions in certain areas. -- David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum _______________________________________________ Emacs-devel mailing list Emacs-devel@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/emacs-devel
