On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris > <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> > >>> > >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett >>> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett >>> >> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > Hi, >>> >> > >>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> >> > <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett >>> >> >> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> >> >> wrote: >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> Hi, >>> >> >>> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers >>> >> >>> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > >>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett >>> >> >>> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers >>> >> >>> >> <ralf.gomm...@googlemail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett >>> >> >>> >> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >>> >> >>> >> > wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> Hi, >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris >>> >> >>> >> >> <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> >> >>> >> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>> >> >> No, that's not what Nathaniel and I are saying at all. >>> >> >>> >> >> Nathaniel >>> >> >>> >> >> was >>> >> >>> >> >> pointing to links for projects that care that everyone agrees >>> >> >>> >> >> before >>> >> >>> >> >> they go ahead. >>> >> >>> >> > >>> >> >>> >> > It looked to me like there was a serious intent to come to an >>> >> >>> >> > agreement, >>> >> >>> >> > or >>> >> >>> >> > at least closer together. The discussion in the summer was >>> >> >>> >> > going >>> >> >>> >> > around >>> >> >>> >> > in >>> >> >>> >> > circles though, and was too abstract and complex to follow. >>> You are repeating the loaded phrase 'ripping the current code out' and > thus making the discussion less sensible and more hostile. > >> It isn't like it is (known >> to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis on which >> build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence committed by >> someone yet to make a positive contribution to the project. > > This is cheap, rude, and silly. All I can see from Nathaniel is a > reasonable, fair attempt to discuss the code. He proposed backing off > the code in good faith. You are emphatically, and, in my view > childishly, ignoring the substantial points he is making, and > asserting over and over that he deserves no hearing because he has not > contributed code. This is a terribly destructive way to work. If I > was a new developer reading this, I would conclude, that I had better > be damn careful which side I'm on, before I express my opinion, > otherwise I'm going to be made to feel like I don't exist by the other > people on the project. That is miserable, it is silly, and it's the > wrong way to do business. > > Best, > > Matthew >
/me blows whistle. Personal foul against defense! Personal foul against offense! Penalties offset! Repeat first down. 10 minute rule, please. Ben Root P.S. - as a bit of evidence against the idea that chuck doesnt consider opinions from non-contributors, I haven't felt ignored during this whole discussion, yet I don't think that anyone had an expectation of me to produce code. However, to have an expectation to produce code for counter-proposals might be a bit unfair because the ones offering counter proposal may not have the resources available, like we did with mark.
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion