Hello, > I agree, it's a legitimate question. Don't interpret too much the > delay though: for example, in my case, it's simply that, with 16 hours > of teaching per week those last weeks, even keeping up with the > discussion is tricky :-)
I understand. Actually, some persons raised the very same objection to the vote which just took place over two days, a short time indeed. Would you agree to say that its result should not be interpreted for this reason ? I also understand that nobody in your short-list could feel entitled to give the others' name, but this can be solved easily: would you be willing to send them an email and ask whether they object to this request ? Somebody could then answer this question, or tell us that some members do not want to reveal their identity. You told us about how you wanted to do avoid hurt feelings, turning some people away and ruining the productivity. Indeed, what has been happening since this code of conduct was first mentionned should be avoided. You are probably right also when you say that it was useful to speak about it among yourselves in order to give us something solid to build upon. But what was your aim by sending it first to Volker, to have him forward it to sage-devel ? This, I do not understand. It is not so bad as it can still be done now: Vincent showed the way by creating a wiki page that anybody can edit, and we sure can debate all we want on sage-devel. This does not mean that your work has been pointless: you took the time to discuss between yourselves without having to fight off counter-arguments immediately, you built a logic. But not all were present, and by not giving others the time you had to discuss it, it can be received as imposed by a small group upon everybody. Also, please consider that contributing something that big to Sage all of a sudden is like a patch bomb. You are always at risk of noticing some flaw during the review that may require to rewrite everything. In the present context, if nobody is exactly against the guidelines you designed, some oppose the principle of a code, of people denouncing others, or of "selected persons" having the final say. Instead of writing a law meant to change the behaviour of people on sage-devel, what about writing some kind of "spoiler alert" to warn people about what they might see ? --- Beware, for our developpers have very strong feelings about their work. It is important to them, and if they get loud remember that their eyes are stuck on the code, and that they want to build something they can be proud of. On sage-devel, we talk about code. Most of the time, you have no reason to take anything personally. At other times, trust your common sense. Answering a post tomorrow instead of right now often does the trick. --- We can use somebody else's sense of humor as many here found mine lacking, but what about this principle ? No rules, no police, no mails sent to sage-abuse and no 'chosen people', but something to let new contributors know what to expect ? As for the the problems met by the current developpers, Thierry is right to say that the way out is not to build a law that can be used to declare one as innocent and the other as guilty. > Of course I can't easily prove it; but I can assure you that this was > all done in good faith and with good intentions. We could possibly > have done a better job: calling for a vote later, making the call for > amending the text more explicit, guessing that people would interpret > "code" as "law", which was certainly not the intention. There is time to do it now if you like. We can have another vote to re-write this code (now adopted) as a community, or possibly the 'yes'-voters could be convinced that it is the best way to handle this as a community. But we have all the time in the world to do this again if we feel the need to. > And unpleasant to be called various names when trying, maybe clumsily > but honestly, to make our community a better place. I know exactly how you feel. I have been trying to remind peole for two years of wrong results returned by Sage, I tried to fix it myself many many times only to find out I was not competent on this part of the code. I also tried to say that the way findstat was implemented in Sage could be less intrusive, and there were others examples. And yet I took this code of conduct to be against me even though I tried, clumsily and honestly, to make our code a better code. Nathann -- 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 post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
