Graham Percival <gra...@percival-music.ca> writes: > 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.
Do you think more people read the GOP proposals off-list? I have the suspicion that the cure is doing more for addressing the perception of the problem than the problem itself, a lack of people both qualified and interested in discussing long-term planning. It might just put the discussion somewhere where nobody will stumble over it accidentally. No, I have nothing better to propose. >> >> 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 should really try to refrain from mincing words in a manner where nobody but myself gets what I mean with them. "I don't see the point in discussing discussing" was not a typo, and it is different from "I don't see the point in discussing". Like with code changes, I don't see that we can really prestructure discussions extensively since we have no abundance of resources to streamline into channels. It's like trying to figure out the best way to build a drainage system in the desert. > 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. But will prohibiting to talk about LilyPond increase the motivation to work on LilyPond? > Unfortunately some people wanted to keep [talk] messages on -devel > instead of sending them elsewhere, so we're in this predictable > state. I don't see overwhelming consensus about your analysis of what is supposed to be the problem, its degree, and its proposed cure. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list lilypond-devel@gnu.org https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
