+1 to everything Harm said, and big thanks to Werner! (and Urs, who co-organized Salzburg event)
Janek sob., 8 lut 2020 o 16:52 Thomas Morley <thomasmorle...@gmail.com> napisał(a): > Am Sa., 8. Feb. 2020 um 14:59 Uhr schrieb Kieren MacMillan > <kieren_macmil...@sympatico.ca>: > > > To me, the greatest shame is that all the positive energy and momentum > coming out of the Salzburg conference is, it seems, in real danger of being > shut down by toxic energy of the same kind that has led to the community > attrition over the last 5-7 years. > > > > Just an observation from someone who’s been here since 2003, and watched > this movie before. > > Hi Kieren, > > I'd like to fully agree to your statement about the positive energy, > etc out of the Salzburg conference. > It was a great event and great to meet so many people and great to > (I'll stop continuing the list ...). > Again a big, big THANK YOU to Werner and all who made it possible!! > > We discussed many plans, among them (without claim of completeness) > - developer-tools (move to GitHub or similar) > - implement stuff from openlilylib > - CoC > - finally migrate to guile-2 > - ... > > Though, those were plans, sometimes more declarations of intents. > Ofcourse there was not the time to discuss the details. > Home again, and making those plans public, not only more people got > involved (with probably different opinions), but one had a better > opportunity to think over the details. > Thus I think it's natural, thoughts will diverge even more than > already noticed in Salzburg. > > Let me pick a not so heated discussed point: developer-tools and share > my own thoughts: > While I still object going for GitHub, I changed my mind wrt to other > tools. > I reflected some of my reservations, coming from simply lazyness: I > had to do hard work to get to grips with the current reviewing-setup. > Thus I feared the need to do it again. Nowadays I think, it may be > better to move away from Rietveld/sourceforge. > > On other plans even more objections may happen, see James' thoughts > about the CoC. > > Again, I think it's natural to observe a broader, more diverging > amount of opinions. > > We need to deal with this, without starting a flame-war, going toxic > or whatever, but in a civil way. > > Not going into details of the CoC-discussion, why not handle it as what it > is: > It's a patch. Review showed there are too many objections. Thus it > should be set to 'needs work' or 'waiting'. > Otoh, there are suggestions to replace this proposal. Why not focus on > those proposals? > > > > For me it's more a shame we are distracted by such discussions from > doing our work. > Although my time is very limited during the usual workingweek, I'd > love to do more on the guile-v2-thingy or at least doing tests for the > already done work, etc. Instead I write this mail (okay, a 'make > test-baseline' runs in the background) or read through very long > threads.... > > Cheers, > Harm > > P.S. that 'make test-baseline' failed, I'll need to investigate after > sending this. > >
