On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:10 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Right - but that would be an absurd overstatement of what I said. > There's no point in addressing something I didn't say and no sensible > person would think. Indeed, it makes the discussion harder.
Well, in that case neither Eric Firing nor I are 'sensible persons', since that's how we both understood what you said (Eric's email appeared to me as a more concise/better phrased version of the same points I was making). You said: """ I'm glad to hear that discussion is happening, but please do have it on list. If it's off list it easy for people to feel they are being bypassed, and that the public discussion is not important. """ I don't think it's an 'absurd overstatement' to interpret that as "don't have discussions off-list", but hey, it may just be me :) > meta-problem that is a real problem is that we've shown ourselves that > we are not currently good at having discussions on list. Oh, I know that did happen in the past regarding this very topic (the big NA mess last summer); what I meant was to try and trust that *this time around* things might be already moving in a better direction, which it seems to me they are. It seems to me that everyone is genuinely trying to tackle the discussion/consensus questions head-on right on the list, and that's why I proposed waiting to see if there were really any problems before asking Nathaniel not to have any discussion off-list (esp. since we have no evidence that what they talked about had any impact on any decisions bypassing the open forum). Best, f _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
