There's some serious cognitive dissonance going on in this section:
As an open-source project, Racket is positioned at a happy medium. The core development team has been working together for years, and the commits remain fast & furious. But they’re friendly scientists, not Shire-dwelling egotists, and remain receptive to improvements across the whole system. If you have a better idea, they’ll listen; if you code it up to their standards and make a pull request, they’ll take it.
[2021 update: I no longer contribute to Racket due to abuse & bullying by the project leadership. Everyone in the broader Racket community, however, has always been helpful and kind.]
That's not cognitive dissonance, that's "I wrote a thing when I held one view. Instead of changing it entirely here is an additional comment that revises my previous one. I'm not going to edit the original."
The order of things matters. "I hold this view which contradicts my earlier, no longer held, view." is not cognitive dissonance. "I hold this view despite it contradicting my other view." is cognitive dissonance.
As an open-source project, Racket is positioned at a happy medium. The core development team has been working together for years, and the commits remain fast & furious. But they’re friendly scientists, not Shire-dwelling egotists, and remain receptive to improvements across the whole system. If you have a better idea, they’ll listen; if you code it up to their standards and make a pull request, they’ll take it.
[2021 update: I no longer contribute to Racket due to abuse & bullying by the project leadership. Everyone in the broader Racket community, however, has always been helpful and kind.]