lilypond-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Urs Liska
Subject: Re: Add Code of Conduct (issue 575620043 by address@hidden)
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2020 22:50:39 +0100
User-agent: Evolution 3.34.1-3

Am Mittwoch, den 05.02.2020, 21:21 +0100 schrieb David Kastrup:
> Urs Liska <address@hidden> writes:
> 
> > Am 5. Februar 2020 20:08:28 MEZ schrieb 
> > address@hidden:
> > > On 2020/02/05 18:17:25, c_sorensen wrote:
> > > > I recognize that Mike Solomon has a different opinion.  I mean
> > > > no
> > > disrespect to
> > > > Mike, Janek, Han-Wen, or any other member of the LilyPond
> > > > team.  I
> > > highly value
> > > > the team spirit of the LilyPond team.
> > > 
> > > Well said.  Here's the current tally as I understand it:
> > > For: Han-Wen, Janek, Mike, Urs, Werner
> > > Against: Carl, Dan, David K., Trevor
> > > Mixed: David N.
> > 
> > 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". 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.

> 
> 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. 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.

Urs

> 




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]