Committer guide: add note about private discussions

[eadler]

Summary

While I could have written this section on my own, the book Producing
OSS describes the issues better than I can. Incorporate by reference.

Note that that does does not address the concerns noted in D16080. It is
merely here to split that review up, and thus contains the original
language.

[eadler]

• Take @seanc's text verbatim

(any deviations are from my own corrections in formatting)

This takes the text that @seanc proposed verbatim, corrected only for
formatting and technical errors.

This is *not* the text that I hope becomes the final text, but is
presented for completeness, and as a starting point for the next step.

[seanc]

Thank you for carrying this discussion forward into a separate review, @eadler.

It seems as though this revision doesn't include an element of what you had intended with your original patch. Can you elaborate on the change that you are hoping for? I want to make sure I understand the position that you're advocating for and that I'm hearing your concerns, or that whatever point it is you're trying to make is heard.

en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/article.xml

3537

Two extra leading spaces.

[eadler]

In D16092#341098, @seanc wrote:

Thank you for carrying this discussion forward into a separate review, @eadler.

It seems as though this revision doesn't include an element of what you had intended with your original patch. Can you elaborate on the change that you are hoping for? I want to make sure I understand the position that you're advocating for and that I'm hearing your concerns, or that whatever point it is you're trying to make is heard.

Give me a few days. I want to be more thoughtful about how it gets written. I've been home due surgery, the past few days, which led to me having a lot of time, but perhaps not being as thoughtful as I should have been about writing it (or honestly, some other things I've said/done over the last few days).

[seanc]

@eadler :, I understand, and no problem. I think you're hitting on something that would be good to formalize, but I want to make sure that what gets prescribed as a community rule of thumb is accurate and strikes the right balance. I think we'd all collectively take something that's an improvement and incremental over something that is perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good." :~] Also, if you want to hit me up on Slack or IRC to talk in a higher-bandwidth medium than a review, feel free.

[eadler]

In D16092#341204, @seanc wrote:

@eadler :, I understand, and no problem. I think you're hitting on something that would be good to formalize, but I want to make sure that what gets prescribed as a community rule of thumb is accurate and strikes the right balance. I think we'd all collectively take something that's an improvement and incremental over something that is perfect. "Perfect is the enemy of good." :~] Also, if you want to hit me up on Slack or IRC to talk in a higher-bandwidth medium than a review, feel free.

It'd be good to chat over slack/IRC. That said, my development computer just up-and-died. I need to repair it, and there are several other things in front of that, including medical issues. This is going to take some time :(

[eadler]

Sean and I chatted. The ultimate thought here was (a) we were talking about two different types of private conversations and (b) the type of conversations we both cared won't be solved by this type of language. As such, just drop it.

[rpokala]

en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/committers-guide/article.xml

3180

"public or" => "public, or"

3181

"forums" => "forums."

3522

"public or" => "public, or"