On 27 November 2017 at 21:59, Nick Timkovich <prometheus...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 27, 2017 at 8:17 PM, Brett Cannon <br...@python.org> wrote: >> >> But calling it "atrocious" and so bad that it needs to be fixed >> "immediately" as if it's a blight upon the stdlib is unnecessarily insulting >> to those that have worked on the module. To convey the feeling that you >> think an OO wrapper would be helpful as the current design doesn't work for >> you, you could just phrase it as I just did to get the same point across >> without insulting anyone. Basically if you wouldn't like your own work >> called "atrocious" by someone you respect, then it's probably best to not >> use that phrasing when talking about a stranger's code either. > > > Sorry for the curt tone, I did lose some sight on the code being designed by > people rather than a faceless organization. My intention wasn't to disparage > the original authors but sprung more out of my frustration and perception > from that thread and those before that the status quo would not change and > that if a contribution was proffered, would simply be dismissed or ignored. > To motivate any change, there must be some argument levied against the > status quo, but hopefully I can articulate it better. > > That little corner is something I'm interested in, and not having > contributed to CPython before, I'm unsure how it "really works". The steps > at https://devguide.python.org/stdlibchanges/ suggest trying to elicit > community feedback from the lists as a step, so negative feedback tends to > kill the enthusiasm to actually make the PR. In the absence of code, > concrete arguments are almost impossible as we're discussing the shape of > clouds.
In my experience (and this reiterates Brett's point) the proposals that get the best responses are those that are presented positively - instead of focusing on the (perceived) problems with the current situation, describe the benefits that will come from the proposed change. If you can't do that, then it's unlikely there is enough justification for a change. Certainly, negative feedback can be demotivating, and when you have a great idea and all you hear is "but what if...?" it's hard to remain positive. But you're not going to get better feedback if you criticise - at best, people will stop listening, and you'll have avoided some of the arguments, but at the cost of no-one being willing to support your proposal and so it dies. Your perception isn't wrong, by the way. It *is* hard to persuade people that the status quo needs to change. But that's not because there's no interest in change. Rather, it's because there's a strong sense among both the core developers and the frequent contributors on this list, of the significant impact any change will have - it's hard to conceive of just how many people will be affected by even the smallest change we make, and that's a big responsibility. So while it's often hard, focusing on the positives (and being willing to accept that the status quo is sufficient for many people) really is the only way to gain support. Paul _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
