I have expressed myself forcefully, and perhaps failed to address @Str4d 's frustration. I turned to my own frustration instead.
It would have been better if I had taken the time to survey our existing projects during the Zashi Pivot, and marked this work as Won’t Complete. It would also have been better if we had a more formal protocol, or coordinator, such that this sort of curation would have been assured rather than left to the discretion of whoever happened to be aware.
Per your comments about the specifics of the PR, I am confident that @Str4d’s comments are useful.
I agree that significant name changes are often best discussed in advance. Repetitive changes (like name changes) should always be carried out as a separate concern (at least commit, and probably PR). Characterizing it as etiquette makes sense to me. I will take that on board.
Getting this kind of feedback from @Str4d was part of my motivation for cultivating this collaboration. That this collaboration did not move forward further is a regrettable consequence of the Zashi Pivot. Had it proceeded I am confident that these points and more would have rapidly been internalized and expressed in newer commits.
Per the bus-throwing… I wrote in frustration. I am coresponsible for negative affects.
Thanks again for taking the time to contribute to the discussion.
This is the part where OSS resembles to sharing a household: everyone has to concede a bit for it to work harmoniously
I know Str4d and to me, he is one of the most friendly humans on this planet. The GitHub mobile UI didn’t help convey that . Comment bubbles are hidden by default and they pop up with no animation and a formal comment can feel too formal.
Probably, a DM could have avoided this misunderstanding.
(unfortunately) We are not that many that we can’t shoot a message. Also, I might be wrong, but I don’t recall that this blocker was brought up on the arborist calls. If this was a blocker for 4 months 24 days ago that’s about 8 to 10 arborists calls. For the case this was actually brought up in an arborist call, then it’s an indication that this particular section of the call is failing to serve its purpose.
Let’s be good to each other. Everyone is working long hours and fighting their own battles we don’t know about
In this case I don’t really think this would be the coordinator’s job. The ones more qualified to judge if a PR won’t be worked on anymore are the persons working on it. Otherwise the coordinator would need to keep pinging people with PRs open (across multiple repos…) to see if they are still working on it which feels like a momumental waste of time on their part.
I agree with this as well. It shouldn’t be the coordinator’s job to ping PR authors, it should be the author’s job to ensure (with tooling) that stakeholders are informed.
I agree with your point that the reverse would be inefficient.
. Comment bubbles are hidden by default and they pop up with no animation and a formal comment can feel too formal.