On 1/16/2024 3:49 PM, matheus wrote:
> I think sometimes this group lack of this kind of thing. I even posted in another thread about String Interpolation that this should be resolved faster if you were online.

texting < newsgroup < phone < zoom meeting < in-person meeting

On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 23:20:59 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

Thanks for the write up.

> On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 10:06:47 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>> [...]
>
> With due respect, I think focusing on acceptance vs rejection of PRs is completely missing the point here.

I appreciate you pointing that out.


> People like Adam Ruppe and Sebastian Wilzbach understand perfectly well that not every contribution is going to be accepted. They don't leave just because they can't get their way. They leave because they feel *personally* disrespected and insulted in their interactions with D's leadership.
>
> When their contributions are ignored, and they have to wait weeks or even months to get so much as an acknowledgement (let alone a review) from leadership  [1], they feel personally disrespected and insulted.

I wrote a spec for that PR and tried to keep Adam informed about my progress as it was going on. I'm not sure what else I could have done in this specific case other than do it sooner, I'm more than willing to listen to suggestions. I'm still trying to get it merged.

> The simple fact is, D needs people like Adam Ruppe and Sebastian Wilzbach more than those people need D. D's leadership cannot afford to insult and disrespect its contributors until they run out of patience and leave for greener pastures. And D's leadership *especially* cannot afford to cement D in the minds of *potential* contributors as a language whose leadership is disrespectful, unprofessional, and frustrating to work with.

I agree.

> This fork should have been a wakeup call, but already, looking at this thread, I can see that the wrong lessons are being learned.

FWIW, it definitely was a wakeup call, at least for me.

> This is not about whether or not PRs get merged. It's about giving contributors the respect and acknowledgement they deserve--not just with your words, but with your actions, your effort, and your time.

I hear you.

On 18/01/2024 5:02 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
>     The simple fact is, D needs people like Adam Ruppe and Sebastian
>     Wilzbach more than those people need D. D's leadership cannot afford
>     to insult and disrespect its contributors until they run out of
>     patience and leave for greener pastures. And D's leadership
>     /especially/ cannot afford to cement D in the minds of /potential/
>     contributors as a language whose leadership is disrespectful,
>     unprofessional, and frustrating to work with.
> 
> I agree.
> 
>     This fork should have been a wakeup call, but already, looking at
>     this thread, I can see that the wrong lessons are being learned.
> 
> FWIW, it definitely was a wakeup call, at least for me.

To be blunt, you and Walter are never on Discord, or anywhere where people are normally talking socially.

In general, you're simply not active enough and on the ball about things to be doing the role you have.

If there is a problem you quite often don't hear about it unless it goes through us long timers and even then it could take months.

I personally have had problems with you not following up on things. That is not conducive towards getting people to contribute.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 16:13:27 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
> On 18/01/2024 5:02 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
>>     The simple fact is, D needs people like Adam Ruppe and Sebastian
>>     Wilzbach more than those people need D. D's leadership cannot afford
>>     to insult and disrespect its contributors until they run out of
>>     patience and leave for greener pastures. And D's leadership
>>     /especially/ cannot afford to cement D in the minds of /potential/
>>     contributors as a language whose leadership is disrespectful,
>>     unprofessional, and frustrating to work with.
>> 
>> I agree.
>> 
>>     This fork should have been a wakeup call, but already, looking at
>>     this thread, I can see that the wrong lessons are being learned.
>> 
>> FWIW, it definitely was a wakeup call, at least for me.
>
> To be blunt, you and Walter are never on Discord, or anywhere where people are normally talking socially.
>
> In general, you're simply not active enough and on the ball about things to be doing the role you have.
>
> If there is a problem you quite often don't hear about it unless it goes through us long timers and even then it could take months.
>
> I personally have had problems with you not following up on things. That is not conducive towards getting people to contribute.

I think that this thread is now going in the wrong direction, what can be obtained in asking people things that can't provide? This thread is improving trust or is mining it? Why ask Atila / Walter to be different?

More _delegation_ in _taking decisions_ is needed, and to archive that, trust in decisions taken by delegated people is needed.

Procedures and roles are to be revamped to improve the way D is managed, taking in account that emerged by the "wakeup call"? Well, to my understanding that's someone that can provide professional advices on what to change and how to change it, or at least can mentor the DLF on that road: UCORA people, they are professional on that, it's their job.

Is that feasible? If yes, let's try to be constructive on that.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 16:02:28 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> On Tuesday, 16 January 2024 at 23:20:59 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> People like Adam Ruppe and Sebastian Wilzbach understand perfectly well that not every contribution is going to be accepted. They don't leave just because they can't get their way. They leave because they feel *personally* disrespected and insulted in their interactions with D's leadership.
>>
>> When their contributions are ignored, and they have to wait weeks or even months to get so much as an acknowledgement (let alone a review) from leadership  [1], they feel personally disrespected and insulted.
>
> I wrote a spec for that PR and tried to keep Adam informed about my progress as it was going on. I'm not sure what else I could have done in this specific case other than do it sooner, I'm more than willing to listen to suggestions. I'm still trying to get it merged.

The problem is not what you did in this specific case; it's the fact that, by the time he submitted the DIP 1036e PR, Adam's relationship with D's leadership had *already* deteriorated so much that he felt only drastic action would get his point across.

What you (and Walter, and Andrei) could, and should, have done is spent the last 10+ years treating Adam with the respect and professionalism he deserved. What you can, and must, do now is (a) determine why you failed to do so, and (b) make plans to ensure that those failures do not recur in the future (either with Adam, should he return, or with other contributors).

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 18:28:33 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> What you (and Walter, and Andrei) could, and should, have done is spent the last 10+ years treating Adam with the respect and professionalism he deserved. What you can, and must, do now is (a) determine why you failed to do so, and (b) make plans to ensure that those failures do not recur in the future (either with Adam, should he return, or with other contributors).

Professional respect is both earned and revocable. Mr. Ruppe did himself no favors during the November community call (don't know if I can say more than that). Extreme frustration is not, and never can be, an excuse from professional decorum. Mr. Wilzbach handled it much better. IMO, the leadership dealt with Mr. Ruppe about as charitably as one could hope for.

On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 18:28:33 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:

>
> The problem is not what you did in this specific case; it's the fact that, by the time he submitted the DIP 1036e PR, Adam's relationship with D's leadership had *already* deteriorated so much that he felt only drastic action would get his point across.
>
> What you (and Walter, and Andrei) could, and should, have done is spent the last 10+ years treating Adam with the respect and professionalism he deserved. What you can, and must, do now is (a) determine why you failed to do so, and (b) make plans to ensure that those failures do not recur in the future (either with Adam, should he return, or with other contributors).

Respect and professionalism is a two-way street. I've seen some of these interactions up close and I can tell you it is not in anyway 100% Walter/Andrei/Atila's fault. There's plenty of blame to go around. Especially in this specific case with Adam. I'm not going to into details, but you've seen the same Discord comments I've seen, Paul. And you weren't in the two meetings where some of us got to see live and in person version. This was going on as we were working with him to overcome the issues he had with us. I just really take issue with Walter always getting all the blame here.

Yes, the DLF needs to find ways to prevent contributors from feeling disrespected, ignored, undervalued, and all of that, and we need to find ways to help them overcome those feelings if they do arise. But please, let's also remember that everyone on the DLF team is just as human as the contributors. We deserve the same respect and professionalism as everyone else.

There have been multiple occasions when I've gone into the Discord server and regretted it, asking myself why I'm even bothering to stick around here when the people I'm working for keep crapping all over us and the work we're doing. It got to the point where I dreaded opening it up. Being called stupid, fools, morons, m*fers, and such is the very opposite of a morale booster.

What I would like to see is a commitment from everyone in the D community to treat everyone else with professionalism and respect. Anyone who is unhappy with a specific decision, process, incident, whatever, is welcome to email me and let me know about it. I'm happy to set up a meeting with the appropriate people to discuss it in person, or facilitate an email conversation with them, or whatever is needed to work it out. Too often, people don't tell us specifically what their root gripes are until they've reached the boiling point, and by then it's too late. So please, let us know before that point comes.

And while we're at it, can we please get rid of this "us vs. them" mentality? We are all here for the same overarching reason: we're enthusiastic about the D programming language. We all want it to succeed, and we all want it to help us achieve our ideas and our goals. It doesn't matter if you're on the DLF team, an employee at one of the D shops, self-employed, or doing this just for fun. So let's please keep that in mind when we're interacting with each other.

On Thursday, 18 January 2024 at 01:56:32 UTC, Adam Wilson wrote:
> On Wednesday, 17 January 2024 at 18:28:33 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> What you (and Walter, and Andrei) could, and should, have done is spent the last 10+ years treating Adam with the respect and professionalism he deserved. What you can, and must, do now is (a) determine why you failed to do so, and (b) make plans to ensure that those failures do not recur in the future (either with Adam, should he return, or with other contributors).
>
> Professional respect is both earned and revocable. Mr. Ruppe did himself no favors during the November community call (don't know if I can say more than that). Extreme frustration is not, and never can be, an excuse from professional decorum. Mr. Wilzbach handled it much better. IMO, the leadership dealt with Mr. Ruppe about as charitably as one could hope for.

I am less concerned about leadership's response to Mr. Ruppe's frustration than I am with the pattern of behavior, spread out over many years, that caused that frustration (and the frustration of others like Mr. Wilzbach) in the first place. It's good to put out fires, but it's even better to avoid starting them.

That said, I certainly agree that, regardless of the circumstances, Mr. Ruppe bears the ultimate responsibility for his own actions.

On 1/16/2024 8:13 AM, Lance Bachmeier wrote:
> The reason I don't want to contribute is because the standard isn't "Does it pass the tests it's supposed to pass?" and "Is it written in an idiomatic style?", the standard is instead the reviewer asking "Is the code written the way I would have written it?" I just don't have time for that.

The larger a project is, the more useful a consistent style is across it.

Though dmd/phobos/druntime each have a different style to them, as do the various other projects that are part of D.

Or maybe you mean something else?

On 1/16/2024 2:17 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
> Different backgrounds are valuables, especially since also you are genius in engineering, hey, a C++ compiler written by a solo man!

I appreciated working with Andrei because he had the academic background I lacked, while I had the "boots on the ground" experience.