Peter, you are very right. There is global attention on Elm at present because it gets things very right, and that's down to Evan. But getting the big things right is very different from managing a process that lets the gaps get filled in by a growing and eager community. Simon
On Friday, 3 June 2016 09:42:48 UTC+2, Peter Damoc wrote: > > Evan, > > Nobody is questioning your technical decisions here. You don't need to > justify choosing to work on 0.17 rather than fixing some lower priority > thing. > > The case I was reacting to is but a mere symptom of a much larger problem. > If you simply make the case go away by just adopting Fred's code into > elm-lang repositories you wouldn't have solved the issue I'm point at. You > would have only removed one of its symptoms. > > From where I'm standing, it looks like all the contributions to elm-lang > go through you. It looks like you have made yourself the bottleneck of Elm > and this is what I think needs to change. > You've created something so wonderful that a lot of people stated using it > and now it has grown so much that it is way beyond the capabilities of one > man. > > It is scary to think what will happen if you will catch the flu or if you > fall madly in love with a gipsy and go on an offline tour of the world. :) > > Now, I admit that I might be wrong. Maybe things are not how I view them. > Maybe things are way better than they were 16 months ago when you started > the original "Improving collaboration" thread. > > > *If an Elm beginner sees some small thing he CAN fix and wants to become a > contributor to elm-lang what would his experience be? *What would be the > story he will share? > Would he end up saying something like: "You know, I tried to contribute a > small thing once and I had to close the PR because the language changed and > my patch became invalid." ? > > I would much rather he would read on elm-lang.org something equivalent to > this page: http://zeromq.org/docs:contributing and with the help of some > maintainer become a contributor to Elm. > > This has been solved before. We don't need to reinvent the wheel. > > Of course, first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. > > > I would love for other people to weight in on this, especially people who > have been on this discussion list for longer than 6 months. > If I'm wrong and I'm just wasting precious time for a lot of people here, > I would love to be told this. > > > > > > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 10:29 PM, Evan <eva...@gmail.com <javascript:>> > wrote: > >> From http://elm-lang.org/blog/farewell-to-frp#what-is-next- >> >> I know some people are eager to help with creating these libraries. >> Please give me some time to develop a coherent process for making sure a >> desire to help can also translate into great results. >> >> >> The message you quote says a similar thing. Lots of things need to >> happen. It is not possible to do everything at the same time. Seven days is >> not a long time, especially when they contain a 3 day weekend. Especially >> when I have a set of goals for the next few weeks based on what *I *think >> are the most important things to get done. >> >> One of my short term goals is to finally get process bot >> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/elm-dev/process$20bot/elm-dev/SnfGqk5XBgg/c1IpV4UvAgAJ> >> >> working to help with this. Literally addressing this exact issue because I >> know it's important and it can be done better. I want process bot to talk >> about expectations >> <https://github.com/process-bot/the-process/blob/master/expectations.md> in >> a way that is very relevant. I wrote that a long time ago, but instead of >> finishing the project, I worked on "the most important thing" so it is >> still not communicated clearly. >> >> I think this comment >> <https://github.com/elm-lang/elm-package/pull/177#issuecomment-220825568> is >> a nice illustration of this. It turns out (1) I was working on 0.17 which >> was pretty important and (2) the actual situation was more complicated than >> everyone thought. When I finally got a chance to give it my full attention, >> the outcome was pretty great! So yes, it could have been quicker, but I >> also think it's hard to retroactively disagree with my prioritization >> decisions once I was able to actually get them out the door. >> >> In the case you are reacting to, I am basically saying: for someone just >> trying to make something, use ports. That'll be fast and it'll work. Yes, >> there are things going on that might make it easier *later*, but they >> are not ready yet. So I read things as "I know you want to achieve X today, >> but instead of telling you how, I will tell you about something that is not >> released yet." Everything there is true, but it's not good advice for that >> person! >> >> >> On Thursday, June 2, 2016 at 8:35:24 AM UTC-7, Justin wrote: >>> >>> +1 on everything your saying here Peter. Thanks for linking the C4 book >>> really interesting and applicable read so far. >> >> -- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "Elm Discuss" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to elm-discuss...@googlegroups.com <javascript:>. >> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. >> > > > > -- > There is NO FATE, we are the creators. > blog: http://damoc.ro/ > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Elm Discuss" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to elm-discuss+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
