> I'm sorry but given Clojure/core's track record of *actions* (or lack of > them, rather) this > sounds a bit offensive to people who are not Clojure/core members, Clojure > committers or "screeners". >
Adding source annotations to a Github project's source base and starting an IRC channel have nothing to do with being a commiter, core member or even having a CA. The former reduces the friction of offering minor changes.You'll recall that I said nothing about the speed of Core. I prefer to discuss things that I have control over. The current process is broken in many ways: > >From your perspective perhaps. There are others whom disagree. Can there be improvements? Definitely. I offered two. > To make matters worse, Clojure/core consistently avoids discussing these > issues in public > I would guess because their position hasn't changed since the last time. This is only speculation. A page like what Anthony proposes could help, but it wouldn't satisfy everyone. Stuart Sierra wrote up something related, but it doesn't cover everything discussed here http://clojure.com/blog/2012/02/17/clojure-governance.html Saying "we are all friends here" is a bit optimistic and does not cut it. > It is very optimistic. Guilty as charged. I would say that saying Core doesn't care is very pessimistic. > > -- -- http://blog.fogus.me -- http://github.com/fogus -- -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
