> So when I say in passing “if it doesn’t matter to Rich, it won’t get in”, it’s not a slight, it’s a statement of fact. People are limited, and must prioritize, your ticket will most likely be deprioritized unless it’s directly related to whatever Rich is currently working on.
> In addition make sure every assumption, every detail you’ve thought of, every possible side-effect of your code, is mentioned in the ticket. Because if you forget to mention something, Rich will most likely catch it, and hand the ticket back to you with a comment of “did you think about X”, that will add another few weeks into your dev time.
> Now begins the “personal opinion” section, what I’ve stated here are the facts as I’ve worked on Clojure and the core projects. I got tired of the constant back-and-forth. Never being able to talk to the decision maker directly aside through a 3rd party. Problems that could be solved via a 10 minute meeting blow up into months of back and forth discussions, and if any party gets busy and forgets to get back to the other about the ticket, that process just takes longer.
The TLDR of the post seems to have been that it takes to long for him to get in changes that he cares about, while he feels like the Core team is focusing on things that are not as important (implicitly at least).
On a happy note, it seems Baldridge is at least acknowledging his missteps with the whole situation with the whole "Thanks for everything Rich, and please don't take my current leave-of-absence from the community as anger. It was out of anger last week, but now I'm using it as a way to reflect" part.
