Ben Finney wrote: > "Martin v. Löwis" <martin at v.loewis.de> writes: > > > It seems to me that, given we're quite a long way into the potential > > user adoption of this feature, it's simply not being used. I would > > support removing it, as it seems that the only purpose it serves is > > to antagonise. > > > Thanks for your advise. I (now) believe this is a reasonable action > > to take, even though I really dislike not being able to defend what > > I believe is in the interest of the PyPI users. > > > Thank you for that decision, and for being honest about the difficulty > in making it. >
And thank *you* for being, as far as I can tell, the only person on the requesting side of this issue appreciative enough to thank Martin for listening and responding. [obMonty] I thought this was Arguments, but it seems I ended up next door in Abuse ... This thread could probably be used as a model for how /not/ to conduct a debate on a technical issue over a public channel, and I would like all those involved to take it to heart as an object lesson in poor community collaboration. Sure, things like this will probably happen again, but let's just try and keep the heat down a little. I am aware that people (on both "sides") may come out of this smarting about the way (they perceive) others behaved. Let's just try and forget those feelings and agree to move on in some sort of comradely way if we can? On the technical side, it would seem logical to me to have third-party (community and commercial) sites establish ratings, and then have PyPI "scrape" the data (hopefully via established APIs) to present it in a friendly and helpful way to those users interacting through a browser. Thanks. PS: I do not frequent the list, so am asking Martin to forward this message if it doesn't make it through. -- Steve Holden st...@holdenweb.com _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
