> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest.
Of course, and the policies to deal with conflicts have deal with the possibility that *anyone* at all might have conflict. But that was not your suggestion. Your suggestion was to make one individual be subject to additional scrutiny that no one else would be subject to. Please explain why should one person be singled out for a special "six-month waiting period" when the exact same possibility for conflict exists with anyone who is ever on the committee? > It is the opposite of sensible, to respond to this with 'how dare you" > or by asserting that this could never happen or by saying that we > shouldn't talk about that in case people get frightened. I point you Red herring. The objection (as many people have now voiced) is the double standard you proposed. > again to Linus' interview [1]. He is not upset that he has been > insulted by the implication of conflict of interest, he soberly > accepts that this will always be an issue, with companies in > particular, and goes out of his way to address that in an explicit and > reasonable way. Your selective quotation is impressive. Also in that interview, Linus points out that his employment contract is probably "unique in the entire world". Which means in practical terms that the details of what he has does are fairly well irrelevant to any other situation. So what is the point in bringing it up, at all, except to try and diminish someone else by comparison? (I'm done.) Bryan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
