Let me write a clarification and a disclaimer. It was not the purpose of my email to blame people. If someone (especially David) felt attacked, I apologize. I wanted to express how I view the situation, and I may be mistaken in my opinions. I don't claim to hold the objective truth.
czw., 6 lut 2020 o 00:32 Janek Warchoł <janek.lilyp...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Do you think that approaching other people with suspicion like this (i.e. > expecting they have worst intentions, which is getting close to a > conspiracy theory) contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I don't think so. > I realize you might have felt attacked, and I apologize. I should have written "Do you think that this contributes to a friendly atmosphere? I personally feel distrusted and unwelcome, as if I had worst intentions." śr., 5 lut 2020 o 23:05 David Kastrup <d...@gnu.org> napisał(a): > >> Uh, this was not intended as a "fence off" as much as that I considered >> extensions of that scope and direction not a good fit for putting in the >> core. >> > > I know it's difficult for you, but please try to see the emotions here. > Simply notice that there is a very active contributor, to whom LilyPond as > a projects owes very much (especially when it comes to being known in > academic circles), who helped people on the lists numerous time, and this > contributor is sad and frustrated about his contributing experience. > Please, don't argue - just acknowledge the fact and try to show others that > you've acknowledged it. > I should have sent this privately. I apologize. > when I tried doing things that didn't clearly align with the views of a > person with most authority (for the last few years David has been this > person) I had felt *unwelcome* and my personal impression was that they > were "blocked". It was very difficult to get some things done. > Disclaimer: this is only *my impression*. Maybe the problem was with me. > However, right after that the discussion became dominated by David, who > started writing multiple long emails, which partly consisted of merit-based > question, partly of his predictions "what will happen if" (which can be > useful, but only to certain extent) and partly of suspicions of something > close to a conspiracy theory. > David, I tried to look from your perspective and realized that it was a natural reaction for you to try defending yourself (even if our goal was not to attack you). I apologize for not trying harder to empathize with you. I am sorry that my proposal of introducing Code of Conduct made you feel attacked. I still think that the discussion gets a bit unmanageable, but it's rather an unfortunate side-effect. If this was a code patch, the result would be that either a) I would have > to spend countless hours addressing his concerns rather than actually > implementing a solution or b) if I tried to ignore the ones that, according > to my best knowledge, were insignificant, David would object and probably > reject the patch. > Again, this is only *my impression*. Maybe my patches were just shitty. It's similar with other initiatives. My impression of LilyPond community is > that the decisions are "made" on the basis of who writes the longest / the > most emails. This person is David, and he's unbeatable at that. But there > is only one David (well, one David K), and if he spends all his time > writing emails, he won't have much time left for writing code - while > people who think differently won't be able to get through because they > don't have so much time for writing emails. That is, in my opinion, one of > the major reasons for development slowdown, and contributor frustration > (apart from the fact that the process is complicated). > I *definitely* don't mean to say that David intentionally tries to win arguments by writing long emails. I *do* mean that I have no idea how to handle the amount of email involved when communicating with David in the time that I have. I hope we can find a way to communicate better, and I'll try to be more thoughtful next time. Janek >