In a recent discussion, one contributor expressed both support and skepticism about the inclusivity in the SuperCollider development community. They commend the idea of broad inclusion but are concerned about the effectiveness of a diverse group in making sound software engineering decisions. This viewpoint seems contradictory, as highlighted by their comment: “While in principle I support the effort to broaden the inclusion of folks with a diversity of knowledge levels and skills, I don’t think that such a broad group is necessarily empowered to make the right decisions about software engineering topics.”
(Let’s find out what they mean using the word “engineering”)
Additionally, they discuss concerns that the community has historically not placed enough emphasis on software “engineering,” which they believe has contributed to the technical debt burden that SuperCollider now faces. This perspective suggests a preference for a more structured, merit-based system where authority in decision-making is tied to significant contributions. As they mention, “I would prefer to explore a model commonly seen in open source [SIC] that is one of earned authority.”
This sounds very contradictory to other conversations, with SuperCollider history and communal ethical life.
While their concerns about maintaining high standards in software “engineering” are valid, it is worth considering whether a more inclusive approach that embraces the huge variety of talents in this community, that could be guided and result in contributions at all levels of the project could not only enrich the development process but also create a more dynamic and community.
Another feedback that surprised me was how collaboration and guidance can become an “emotional burden”. Do more people feel this way? In any case, this is a highly individual discussion.
This approach should NOT forget to address recent concerns about the project being frankly *stuck. I wonder how formal is this distinction, they mean real engineers with a solid academic formation in mathematics, calculus, formal logic, all the good stuff, etc? or those with coding jobs? what is that exactly?
Anyway, nobody checked in much code in those more conservative “how-can-you-be-on-the-council-and-not-be-a-master-?” times, those with and without a PhD did not contribute much code. The vibe just contributed to the situation, I think. Most of the changes were not relevant and out of touch with the community. From the top of my head, I remember a discussion on changing the NAMES of functions and variables or changing the name of git branches.
That’ 's OK if people want to do this. I was just waiting to see the big engineering work. This " engineering" is the result of one person? Shouldn’t it be developed on a much higher level with all the leadership? Is it really about " engineering"?
That is clear among physicists debating real physics. The distinction between those who can discuss physics is very clear and those who don’t understand deeply math. The conversation is impossible in this case.
But, is that the case between us? People have all kinds of formal education and experiences here. Let’s be more careful.
EDIT: If you don’t want to engage in this kind of discussion on this forum, or prefer meeting online or another format, you can just reply by answering this question: What is the development culture and ethics and you want for SuperCollider? Reply in a respectful tone what is the vision for the community that you would like to see.