Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]

[David Kastrup]

Graham Percival <address@hidden> writes:

> On Sat, Feb 08, 2020 at 07:21:30PM +0000, Trevor wrote:
>> Phil Holmes wrote 08/02/2020 17:24:56
>> Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct [Another RFC or not now?]
>> 
>> > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Karlin High" <address@hidden
>> > > However, I'd like to hear from David Kastrup and James Lowe
>> > first. To me, their opposition registered as the strongest.
>> > I remain strongly opposed to a CoC.
>> > 
>> As do I. I'm quite sure we on this list are all perfectly capable of civil
>> and caring behaviour without having it spelled out in nanny-ish terms.
>
> I've stayed silent since I'm not a contributor any more, but if
> there's an "I'm sparticus" moment happening, then I will go on
> record as saying that I think the proposed CoC is a mistake.
>
> I don't have any reasons that haven't been mentioned already,
> other than one meta-reason: proposals like this are very divisive.
> Trying to have this discussion in the middle of a "final sprint
> towards 2.20" was unfortunate.
>
> I speak from experience on that last point: after the 2012
> developer meeting at David's ranch (I think that was the year),
> I was all fired up and started a round of divisive discussions
> (I think it was the "grand lilypond input syntax standardization").

GLISS was not a new project: it had been ongoing from before my
involvement.  A bit of a problem was that it had been going on for a
while without sensible feedback from those who had a good grasp of the
existing parser/lexer implementation of the input language of LilyPond,
and that input language had a lot of ad-hoc elements.

> Within 2-3 weeks, I had squandered all of the good feelings and energy
> sparked from that meeting.  I view that as my worst blunder from all
> my years of involvement with LilyPond.

Hey, I had chalked this up to my slate.  In retrospect, I saw LilyPond
in need to grow roots and you saw it in need to grow wings.  And we were
both excited about its new momentum.  You saw new potential but I am a
lousy follower: I am unable to follow through with anything that I don't
see as the best course.  Heck, I am not even good at following through
with stuff I do see as the best course.

You've clearly been the much better organiser and motivator: the people
who still keep the "shop running" are doing so in processes originally
set up by you and given meaning by you.  And I am basically drawing
blanks when thinking about how to make people pick up the slack when
someone ultimately leaves.

I still think we should have been able to make this work better between
us but have no idea how.  And that's bad because LilyPond needs to
become better at making its community members count, and core
programmers can only do so much of the heavy lifting even when they are
all in agreement.

-- 
David Kastrup
My replies have a tendency to cause friction.  To help mitigating
damage, feel free to forward problematic posts to me adding a subject
like "timeout 1d" (for a suggested timeout of 1 day) or "offensive".