Hi,
First, since we bounded the various periods, could you be clear about
them? Because, you already found two “sponsors” and the GCD has not
been sent to info-guix, if I read correctly.
In order to stay focused, I skip the minor comments I have and directly
jump to the major one. :-)
On Tue, 28 Jan 2025 at 15:33, Ludovic Courtès <l...@gnu.org> wrote:
> # Drawbacks and Open Issues
I would add two roadblocks (at least for me):
1. Not being able to process offline.
2. Not being able to comment patches directly from the editor of my own
choice.
To say it explicitly, for now it’s two main concerns for me. For sure I
agree and share many (if not all!) motivations behind this GCD, but
still, I’ve not solved yet the dilemma: collaborate to a Free Software
project promoting user autonomy and freedom and also accept to be locked
via only one front-end requiring continuous Internet connection and
modern web-browser.
It’s not only about my own choice of using Emacs*. ;-) My main concern
is a kind of dogfooding applied to the principles and values we promote.
Again, I support all the efforts in order to reduce the barrier. Yes,
make the process “easier” (more familiar), i.e., having a workflow more
“friendly” is clearly one principle and value the project cares too.
The question is to find the right balance. There is a trade-off between
what we accept and what we don’t. For instance, moving from the
Translation Project and its stringent Robot to the Weblate instance
falls in this kind of choice. Do not take me wrong about this move: it
was a good one.
All in all, I do not have yet a definitive opinion on the GCD and I
think we need to include (at least) a paragraph about this “dilemma“ /
trade-off / balance. WDYT?
Cheers,
simon
*about working with Emacs: Independently of this GCD, I’ve started to
scratch the itch [1]. That’s why I’m still hesitating. And I’ve not
yet given a look to magit-forge and something like it.
1: https://codeberg.org/martianh/fj.el/pulls/79
