Re: New maintainer

[John Wiegley]

>>>>> Richard Stallman <address@hidden> writes:

> We measure improvement of GNU Emacs in terms of what it can do as part of
> the GNU system. What happens on MacOS or Windows does not count.

I can see how this provides clear focus for the FSF in supporting Emacs, no
argument here.

> We do include support for MacOS and Windows, to the extent people develop
> such support and it isn't a problem to include; but we reject any obligation
> to support them. Making that an obligation would legitimize those systems --
> and go against our goal, which is to beat them -- and divert effort to
> something that doesn't count.

OK, as long as the FSF isn't actively getting in the way of such support, to
intentionally cripple those systems to make GNU seem better. GNU should *be*
better if it is to succeed, not position itself as the best of the worst.

> If the Emacs maintainers rejected features that work only on GNU-like
> systems, saying "You must add support for Windows and MacOS before we can
> install this," that would pressure our contributors to use proprietary
> systems (it is unethical even to suggest people use them!). That requirement
> would hold back contribution from developers that don't use them. It would
> thus impede the improvement of GNU Emacs (which means, making it function
> better in GNU).

I don't recognize your authority to tell me what is and is not ethical,
Richard, and think you should stop using words like "injustice" and
"inethical" in your presentations. Not everyone agrees with you, so calling
them wrong to paint yourself as right does little service to your cause.

If you present the benefits and virtue of GNU-like systems, it gives weight to
your message. But standing out by demonizing opponents is a horse that
politicians have beat to death, and has never, ever led to lasting success.

> Thus, it is unacceptable to require Windows or MacOS support before
> installing contributions. A contribution only HAS to work on GNU (but it
> should be conditionalized so it does not break Emacs on the other platforms
> it doesn't support), but we should try to keep it working on *BSD since that
> is usually easy. As for Windows and MacOS support, we can integrate that if
> and when someone provides it.
>
> There is nothing wrong with an Emacs maintainer's writing code to support
> for Windows or MacOS. However, if the maintainers have limited time for
> Emacs, spending much time supporting secondary platforms could leave the
> Emacs maintainers' main job starved for time. That would be a practical
> problem, if it happens. Perhaps it won't happen.

Again, I can't argue with this as FSF policy. Only that, since I use OS X
daily, this is the Emacs I experience, and it colors my perception of how well
Emacs is doing. If the experience is great on GNU systems, but awful on OS X,
I'll see this as meaning that changes needing to be made. Conversely, I won't
notice degradation on GNU systems owing to cross-platform changes, and would
require those using such systems to inform me.

So there are probably much better candidates than I for achieving the best
"GNU Emacs", instead of the broader definition of "Emacs for all supported
platforms" that I have in mind. Note too that the latter is very likely what
most Emacs users in the world think of when they think of a "better Emacs"; I
imagine only a subset of those using Emacs do so to promote GNU more than to
edit files.

Eli Zaretskii wrote:

> So, given this seemingly unsolvable contradiction, what do you, the crowd,
> expect of the new maintainer? What "job description", in addition to what
> Richard wrote, would you propose if you were tasked with the job of finding
> the candidates? E.g., how many hours a week should that person be available
> for working on Emacs? Which talents and personal traits should he or she
> possess? Etc. etc.

I think this is a great next step. We need a proper "job description",
including objectives, responsibilities, expectations, and what should define a
successful tenure.

John