On Tue, 2012-05-15 at 12:39 +0200, Pascal Chambon wrote: > believe me all this fuss is pitiful compared to the real harm that was > done numerous time to willing newcomers, on pyjs' old ML, when they > weren't aware about the heavy dogmas lying around. > > A demo sample (I quote it each time the suvject arises, sorry for > duplicates) > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > | Please get this absolutely clear in your head: that > | > | you do not "understand" my reasoning is completely and utterly > | > | irrelevant. i understand *your* reasoning; i'm the one making the > | > | decisions, that's my role to understand the pros and cons. i make a > | > | decision: that's the end of it. > | > | You present reasoning to me: i weight it up, against the other > | > | reasoning, and i make a decision. you don't have to understand that > | > | decision, you do not have to like that decision, you do not have to > | > | accept that decision. > | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
The above seems perfectly reasonable to me. You're working with Python anyway - a language organised by a team that gives full control to the BDFL... Imagine instead that you were talking about a bug in a proprietary piece of software (Oracle / Internet Explorer / etc) - do you think they'd let *you* make the decision, or keep the option under discussion until *you* fully understood the reasoning of the company that owned the code? No - they'd listen to your argument, weigh up the two sides, and make a decision on their own. The idea of having two sides able to make their cases and one person rule on them is incredibly common - it's how courts across the world work, and it's how management of any team (software related or not) goes. Tim -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list