On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 9:49 PM Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > ian martins <ia...@jhu.edu> writes: > > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2021 at 3:45 PM Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Responding to essentially just flag you have seen the patch message > > really only adds noise and may even 'drown out' those responses which > > add real 'value' to any discussion. I also doubt that asking people to > > do this would actually result in any actual change of behaviour by > > subscribers. > > > > Timothy said there were 25 patches without response and the list goes > back six months, so we're only talking about 50 emails per year. > > That assumes there is a single 'owner' who accepts the responsibility to > respond to every patch submitted. > Why does it? If some individual notices that some patch was submitted but hasn't gotten a response, that person can send a "thanks for submitting. probably maintainers don't use that feature." And someone else could check Woof every three or six months, if so inclined. It doesn't have to be anybody's job, and it doesn't have to be limited to some predesignated group. Having someone respond to the author of a patch and provide some > meaningful feedback would be great, but I don't see how that can happen > in a project which is already stretched and with limited resources. > There has already been multiple messages requesting additional help and > for volunteers willing to put in the time needed to maintain parts of > org mode. Adding to that workload isn't going to help. > I don't see how this adds to the workload in a significant way, but also couldn't this be the solution to that problem? Instead of ignoring potential future contributors we could encourage and welcome them. Maybe we don't have to be constrained by our current limit on resources. > To some extent, if someone submits a > patch and hears nothing, either they have failed to clearly explain what > the patch does (and therefore did not tweak any interest) or it is a > patch to introduce functionality which is of low interest to community > participants. > But if they hear nothing, how are they to know which was the problem? And if it was their first contact, how should they know the problem is one of the things you listed instead of any number of reasons one can imagine that no one is talking to them?
