On Sat, Oct 06, 2012 at 02:43:48PM +0200, David Kastrup wrote: > Marc Hohl <m...@hohlart.de> writes: > > > Am 05.10.2012 18:34, schrieb Janek Warchoł: > > > >> i find it hard to keep up with our GLISS discussions. I've also > >> heard that the amount of technical details, digressions and > >> "multithreadedness" stops some people from participating, as they > >> don't have enough time to read long conversations carefully. > > I would want to venture the opinion that there is no substitute for > reading a conversation before putting forward an opinion.
That's why I organized GOP the way I did. Important proposals are specially marked; the matter is summarized and relevant history is given. I do not assume that the reader has read anything other than the proposal (they occasionally may include links to particularly relevant emails). This is vital for a team of people as "sparse" (in terms of available time) as lilypond. A general development mailing list will not have everybody reading everything. > >> On the other hand, if we discuss our *problems*, syntax experts can > >> just answer "it would be reasonable to solve it this or that way" - > >> and voila! less frustration. > > I don't see the point in discussing discussing all too much. It spends > time and does not really lead anywhere. I agree that unstructured discussions are a disaster for productive work. I think the development list should only contain structured discussions on concrete proposals; it's too easy for people fall into a trap of thinking that talking about lilypond is the same thing as working on lilypond. Unfortunately some people wanted to keep [talk] messages on -devel instead of sending them elsewhere, so we're in this predictable state. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
