Thanks for restarting the discussion Tobias. From my perspective, there are several things that can move this conversation forward. 1. More clarity on how NEP-29 will be implemented in Sage. In particular, that policy just guarantees a particular time frame during which Python *will* be supported, but doesn't describe what happens afterward. Once the window is passed, is someone (who?) going to proactively update build scripts to prohibit the old version of python? Or does it just grant permission for people to use features that are not available in the old Python, and merging such a PR will also involve updating the build requirements? 2. A wiki page. Currently, the arguments for and against this change are pretty scattered. Tobias (and Dima), could you create a wiki page where pros and cons are summarized? Once you do, I would suggest running it by Matthias, since a lot of the arguments against it have come from him. 3. A timeline. I'm going to suggest three weeks for discussion, with voting starting July 18 and ending one week later on July 25 (anywhere on earth). I know that there have been conversations on and off about this issue for a while, but I think having some time dedicated to focused discussion may help others feel like they have a full grasp of the issue. 4. Additional people getting involved in the conversation. Tobias, Dima and Matthias all clearly feel quite strongly about this issue and have been involved in it for a while. Other people can hopefully bring some more perspectives, suggesting compromises or giving additional perspectives. In the end, we *need* other people to vote, so that Tobias, Dima and Matthias can get some resolution on this. 5. A moderator. Several people asked me to moderate last time, and I'll do my best for this discussion. I'll start with a few requests for everyone involved. * First, I think multiple short, quick rebuttals are not a good idea in a heated email discussion. We have three weeks. Take the time to collect your thoughts and respond to the whole of an argument. If appropriate, add things to the pros and cons on the wiki page. Most of all, take the time to read what you've written and think about how it will be received by both the people you're arguing with and the thousands of people subscribed to sage-devel. * Second, take a step back and think about what you can do to make this environment more welcoming and pleasant for everyone. I know several people involved have said that the issues we're discussing, and the way we're discussing them, have lessened their desire to contribute to Sage, and I think that would be a tragedy. All three of you are critical members of this community, and I don't want to lose you. I'm not going to prescribe anything specific, but I think it would help if everyone can think about ways to show that you value the people involved, even if we have specific technical disagreements. * Third, while work goes forward on a summarizing wiki page, I'd like to hear suggestions from others about how to make the process better. Feel free to email the list or write to me directly.
We made it through the github discussion, and we can make it through this. Stay positive. David On Tue, Jun 27, 2023 at 10:14 AM Tobias Diez <tobiasdiez...@gmail.com> wrote: > Any suggestions on how to move forward now? Should I simply open a new > vote or are there still open questions or a need to discuss certain aspects > of the proposal? > > On Sunday, 4 June 2023 at 19:49:23 UTC+2 G. M.-S. wrote: > >> >> For the benefit of all of us (including Dima, Matthias and Tobias), would >> it be possible to start afresh, without any reference whatsoever to these 3 >> linked discussions? >> >> Also, would it be possible for David to act somehow as a "moderator"? >> >> Best, >> >> Guillermo >> >> On Sun, 4 Jun 2023 at 17:37, Tobias Diez <tobias...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> On Saturday, 3 June 2023 at 19:31:18 UTC+8 Marc Culler wrote: >>> >>> That is what always happens when people try to force a vote before there >>> has been a discussion of sufficient depth to allow a consensus to form. >>> >>> >>> To clarify since this point came up before: The discussion about this >>> topic started over two years ago in >>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/issues/30384, then this February >>> continued on the sage mailing list ( >>> https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/j1cwbTU8aOU/m/2sTiwdKPBQAJ) >>> and in April in the PR https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/35403. >>> However, only Matthias, Dima and me joined the discussion. Since we three >>> couldn't come to a consensus, I opened the vote in order to get the input >>> from the broader sage community (following advice from David and William). >>> >> >> > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "sage-devel" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/feaeb36f-129b-4c18-9789-6cc97c1556a9n%40googlegroups.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/feaeb36f-129b-4c18-9789-6cc97c1556a9n%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer> > . > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_n%2BJzh17NBrs01DbADMe33H5RJHgOTvJgZVdbVzdqd-QA%40mail.gmail.com.
