Hi Russell,

> To my esteemed colleague, I have a few comments for your comments on
> my comments. ;]

Lovely. I happen to have one or two remarks on your comments^{2} :P

> I’m all for the idea of tightening up documentation to make Org a more
> polished product. The issue is when the justification for that effort
> is interoperability with tools outside Emacs.

I think this is always a good thing. Regarding the motivation, I’m not sure how
crucial it is. The idea I have had and am yet to articulate (hopefully I’ll sit
down and do so this week) is originally motivated by considerations for people
who want to make tools that work with Org, but upon reflection I think has
broader benefits. I think the framing is also rather important here, not
changing Org to fit other tools, but making it easier for other tools to shape
themselves to be interoperable with org-mode — which I see as the crux of this
topic.

> My goal is to remind everyone that maintainer and coder time is a
> scarce resource, and I’m very protective of asking them to commit to
> anything. An indirect commitment can still feel like a commitment,
> even if it’s only implied by popular opinion and not agreed to.

It’s always nice to see you advocating for consideration of maintainers and
contributors free time. With this specific topic though, given that we have one
maintainer/significant contributor (Ihor) asking for feeback on proposed changes
w/ motivation and another one (me) very interested in it , I’m not sure that
this concern is particularly relevant.

All the best,
Timothy