Hi Russell,

I have a few comments on your comments :)

> These kind of issues snowball because we are also indirectly asking
> for our coders and maintainers to consider those external tools while
> continuing to support Org.

As I read it, considering other tools was just in the respect of indicating what
degree of support different tools have for Org as defined by org-mode. Not
changing anything we do based on those tools.

> How many syntax documents are we supposed to maintain outside of the working
> implementation in Emacs and the manual?

Just the one. I have some ideas on this that need to be written up, but I see
this more as polishing our syntax specification such that it’s is more
approachable for someone interested in supporting Org. IMO this leads to a
syntax document which is just better, period.

> The topic of software freedom comes up because by definition, other
> tools are outside of Emacs and may be non-free. It’s important to
> consider, but isn’t a reason to not discuss features. The key is our
> volunteers should not be required to code features for non-free tools
> outside of Emacs.

I don’t think anybody has proposed this. Personally I’m not even sure how we
went from making the website/docs more approachable to supporting 3rd party
tools ourselves, or changing anything in org-mode itself for them…

> An implied support requirement to preserve interoperability with
> external tools is a large commitment, and could also run into the
> non-free software issue. Expect people to have strong opinions about
> these matters.

With regards to this, by the very nature of things, any change that would break
interoperability with external tools would have to be a breaking change to the
syntax (with all the relevant implications for org-mode itself). In such a
situation, this would be the major concern, not external tools, so I see this
line of reasoning as being a bit moot.

> Discussions are often fruitful for all involved and shouldn’t be a
> problem when conducted in a respectful manner. Expect critical
> opinions at times, but we should keep it civil.

Indeed. I do find myself wishing that some discussions stayed more on-topic
though…

All the best,
Timothy