Re: dash.el [was: Re: Imports / inclusion of s.el into Emacs]

[Eli Zaretskii]

> From: Phillip Lord <address@hidden>
> Cc: address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden,
>   address@hidden,  address@hidden,  address@hidden
> Date: Tue, 12 May 2020 22:38:31 +0100
> 
> No, I wouldn't want you to step down, and this was not directed
> specifically at you.

The message had me in the To header and was a direct response to
something I wrote.  I interpreted it as being aimed at me, yes.

> Overall, emacs-devel is a fairly conservative place, though. That,
> combined with a slow and onerous copyright assignment proceedure
> (proceedure not policy: the proceedure could be fixed without
> changing policy), means that the ecosystem outside core is richer
> than inside.

We can discuss which parts of our requirements are overly conservative
and need to be relaxed (but then we should talk about specifics, not
in such general terms).  But let's agree about one thing: none of
these requirements have anything to do with being ungrateful to our
contributors.  Every contribution is very welcome, and the standards
are not meant to be obstacles for the sake of obstacles, they are
meant to keep the quality high enough for us all to be proud of what
we achieved.

> If packages like this do not meet Emacs standards, perhaps, this it
> is Emacs standards that need to change to fit.

You make it sound as if asking the developer of a package, e.g., to
reformat the doc strings so that the first line is a complete sentence
somehow means the whole package is garbage.  IOW, the delta between
the original package and what would make it on par with the rest of
the code is usually quite small.  It is not a rejection of the
package, it is a small set of minor requests.

It is still possible that our standards should change in some ways,
but let's again keep this in perspective and not blow it out of
proportion.