Re: conflicts in the gnu project now affect guile

[Christopher Lemmer Webber]

Jan Nieuwenhuizen writes:

> Mark H Weaver writes:
>
>> Andy Wingo <address@hidden> writes:
>>> Before the RMS/GNU/FSF conversation started, Mark Weaver left Guile, for
>>> essentially unrelated reasons.  He threatened to leave because he wished
>>> to be consulted before I landed mixed definitions and expressions and
>>> shipped them in the 2.9.4 release;
>>
>> The funny thing is, I don't actually have a strong opinion on this
>> particular change.
>>
>> What I *do* have a strong opinion on is that you made the decision
>> unilaterally, without discussion on the mailing list
>
> I have been worrying a bit about this change because I do not see how to
> implement it in Mes.  I did not speak up because I believe that our
> bootstrapping efforts should not hold Guile development back.
>
>> Ludovic and I only found out about the change after the public
>> announcements had already been made.
>>
>> Can you understand why I consider this behavior to be dictatorial?
>
> Yes, I can see that now.  However, having met Andy I could not have
> imagined that something like that could have been his motivation.  It
> would be great if we all could spend some time together.
>
>> For what it's worth, despite our disagreements, I still sincerely
>> believe that you are acting in good faith, and fighting for what you
>> believe is right.  I hope that you can believe that I'm doing the same.
>
> When you left that was pretty discouraging for me: I enjoyed and much
> appreciated your recent help with the Guix bootstrap.  Thank you for
> that!  I am happy you have decided to come back.

Mark played a major role in me learning and being welcomed into both the
Guile and Guix communities so I also felt sad to see him go (especially
in Guix, where I've followed his contributions more closely than in
Guile itself).  I will also say: I don't want to see the Guile/Guix
community shaken apart.  IMO Guile and Guix have been the most positive
communities in GNU in my experience over the last 5 years; I'd like to
see it remain that way.

That said, I think there are two things that are being mixed up in here
simultaneously, and it's making the situation more confusing.  There's
the technical decision-making that Mark is upset by which, I will take
it at face value that this is why Mark wanted to come back as
co-maintainer.  There also is what appears to be what appears to be
retaliation for Andy being one of the people speaking up (I am also one,
but Andy has been more visible given his blogpost) about the governance
problems in GNU and RMS's role in them.

Again, even if Mark's concerns were more about the former issue (the
technical decisionmaking of the project, which it turns out is also a
balancing governance vs who-is-doing-the-work discussion), I think
*RMS's* action of unilaterally re-appointing Mark without notifying or
asking the other maintainers lead to the "could the rug be pulled out
from me at any time?" response many GNU developers/maintainers
(including myself) read into it.  Even if that's what Mark's concern was
(I never saw the internal GNU discussion lists), that definitely created
confusion.

Now to return to the issue of technical decisionmaking in Guile.  For
better or for worse, I think it's true that Andy is the main person
applying hack energy to the Guile codebase.  Mark, I understand your
concern that Andy hasn't communicated clearly the changes he was making
beforehand, and maybe we can improve things there.  Is there a way we
can do that without also applying "stop energy" to that work at large?
I am worried also that language such as calling someone a dictator of
Guile isn't a constructive way to go about it.

 - Chris