Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > > > 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.
Is that right? I think I'm calling Charles on giving Nathaniel the silent treatment. Am I wrong to do that? Is that not true? See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion