Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)

[David Kastrup]

Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:

> Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
>> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
>> 
>> > I must say that I haven't actually expressed an opinion about it so
>> > far, and I don't know which I have.
>> > 
>> > I don't feel uncomfortable without and wouldn't mind adding it.
>> > 
>> > OTOH openLilyLib owes its existence to a nonzero part to the fact
>> > that
>> > I found it easier to do that than getting my ideas into LilyPond
>> > itself. (Although this isn't actually a comment on the CoC issue).
>> 
>> That would be relevant regarding the Code of Conduct if fear of
>> getting
>> harrassed kept you from contributing the code to LilyPond.
>
> Now that you say it I recall what triggered my comment in the first
> place (I got distracted while writing and was somewhat confused
> afterwards).
>
> Indeed it was the kind of unpleasant discussion about proposed changes
> (I don't recall whether it was lilypond-devel threads or actual
> patches, probably the former) that was the driving force. In a nutshell
> my requests or suggestions were furiously fenced off as simply enabling
> "single-person use cases".

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.

> It was offending because the rejection was pretty personal, especially
> since the argument was explicitly and unfoundedly questioning (or
> rather denying) the usefulness of my suggestions, and I think by now I
> do have some credentials with regard to consequential usability or use
> case enhancements.
>
> I think it would count as a case falling under a CoC, but even in
> hindsight I have no idea whether having one would have helped the
> situation.

I am not sure either since the intent was to encourage keeping this in a
separately developed but easily available project.

>> It would be marginally relevant if the use of development platforms
>> was
>> under consideration where accepting/providing a particular Code of
>> Conduct was mandatory, and use of such a particular platform would
>> have
>> made working directly in the LilyPond repository more feasible.
>> 
>> For what it's worth, I do think that the bulk of OpenLilyLib likely
>> just
>> is a better fit for keeping in a separate repository/project since
>> changes in there do not need tight coordination with changes in
>> LilyPond.
>
> That's correct, and in a way this has been a lucky coincidence.

It was what I wanted to have conveyed in the first place, so it is lucky
coincidence that you ended up doing what I intended to suggest but
apparently failed.

The problem that we still need to get under wraps is that it is
non-trivial for the user to plug in and use OpenLilyLib as one of
several equal packages because the LilyPond core is missing the
infrastructure and conventions for doing this in a seamless manner.

Maybe if LilyPond could have offered something like that at the time, it
would not have appeared similarly discouraging.

> But noone could have expected that this system would take off enabling
> the development of even pretty massive extension package like the
> edition- engraver or scholarLY. And it is all but a certainty to
> expect a would- be contributor like me ending up doing that kind of
> stuff rather than just leaving ship.

Yes.  Even given better communication by my side.  If there are obvious
recipes to follow to place and extend and use one's own plugin package,
and if one so desires, submit it in a manner where other users may
install it on-demand, I hope that the option to abandon ship will become
not the first choice to think of.

So I messed up in communicating my understanding of the best approach to
the situation.  I don't think (or at least I very much hope so) that
this was delivered in a form that could be construed as a personal
attack, so I have my doubts that a Coc enforcement team would have had
much to work with here.

-- 
David Kastrup