X-Authentication-Warning: delorie.com: mail set sender to geda-user-bounces using -f X-Recipient: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Message-ID: <20160105092139.10862.qmail@stuge.se> Date: Tue, 5 Jan 2016 10:21:39 +0100 From: "Peter Stuge (peter AT stuge DOT se) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com]" To: gEDA User Mailing List Subject: Re: [geda-user] Positive discussion topic thread Mail-Followup-To: gEDA User Mailing List References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Note-from-DJ: This may be spam Reply-To: geda-user AT delorie DOT com Errors-To: nobody AT delorie DOT com X-Mailing-List: geda-user AT delorie DOT com X-Unsubscribes-To: listserv AT delorie DOT com Precedence: bulk Peter Clifton (petercjclifton AT googlemail DOT com) [via geda-user AT delorie DOT com] wrote: > Please reply, with only positively phrased, positive actions which you > - the respondent are currently, or will shortly - be taking to improve > the gEDA/gaf and/or gEDA/PCB projects. I'm organizing a gEDA fringe meeting in the FOSDEM cantine, where we will 1. meet and 2. think out loud together about the future direction of our EDA suite. We'll post notes to the list. I have a clear idea about some things (C/scheme, data model, file formats) but not about everything that has been discussed lately. I also read the mailing list, and I eagerly and mercilessly ignore repetitive and redundant arguments. Please know that there is no point for anyone to participate in them. There are very smart people on this list and they are not affected by this kind of noise so easily. I will also do my very best not to get caught up in one myself! :) This does *not* mean that I ignore any arguments made, whether I agree or disagree with them. But repeating something over and over will only make me less inclined to care about it. We heard the arguments the first time. Posting the same message again only weakens the case. I want to emphasize this: I will not be swayed by mass emails without strong new content. If you watched my presentation about how I failed to maintain the libusb project then you already know that I not only tolerated but also fueled far too long far too intense email discussions there, which drove people away and annoyed the community at large. I will not repeat that mistake, and I will argue to take strong action against anyone who is repeatedly speaking without contributing significantly to any discussion. The mailing list is our primary communications channel and we must treat it with more respect than we have done in the past. If someone does not show this respect then I will yell and shame them in public. If that does not help then I will at some point request that they be excluded from further participation on the list. It is imperative that the list is a friendly place where we communicate with pleasure, not pain. If someone feels pain on the list, I request that you let me know about that off-list. Please do not use the reply function, because that will send an email to the entire list. Instead, send me a new message. I know that it is very difficult to anticipate how an email will be received by an entire list. I will *not* argue to exclude anyone without them receiving ample warning and having an opportunity to discuss at the very least with me, maybe also in a larger group, as may be needed. If anyone is drafting an email which mostly rehashes an already known position of theirs, then that email should rather be deleted. Our time is too valuable. Most of the emails on the list *do* have very strong content and I am very excited to see discussion at such a high technical level! That kind of design discussion is very important for us! As the discussion finds good ideas, remember that writing the code to implement them can take a long time, and also remember that unless you are the one writing that code and publishing clean commits with useful commit messages based on the public repositories, then you can not say how someone else must work! I can't either. What we *can* do is to encourage development in some particular direction by stating our case, once. I look forward to meeting at FOSDEM! Kind regards //Peter