this change but it certainly sent me
>>> on a wild goose chase trying to understand the 404 response. Would be VERY
>>> useful if this 404 at least provided some information as to what it's
>>> really all about - preferably with the above link embedded in it.
Hi Josh,
I agree with and understand your sentiments. However, you are basically
arguing that since we cannot count on the common sense of the user
community to behave professionally in professional environments, we must
therefore count on the commonsense of TPTB who will enforce a speech and
st of the community and making a
genuine attempt to make the community a better place.
-- Ben
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 6:36 AM, James Bennett
wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 6:25 PM, Benjamin Scherrey
> wrote:
>
>> I really appreciate you for being the first person to direc
Hi Shai,
I really appreciate you for being the first person to directly respond
to this most critical issue in this debate. You are correct, this incident
is quite central to my point and concern. However, I have again reviewed
the group thread under discussion where the incident occurred and
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:43 AM, Audrey Roy Greenfeld
wrote:
>
>
> On Tuesday, September 9, 2014 3:07:57 PM UTC-7, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>>
>>
>>I'm curious to know - exactly what are the goals that people expect
>> from a speech and conduct code? Do
Kate,
What you did there is a perfect example of how to enforce an
affirmative inclusive conduct policy. My reply was not intended (and
hopefully not perceived as such) to belittle him but rather to clarify the
record of what my position was and the facts of my effort to support them.
I will a
14 09:16, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
>>
>> So lets see... anyone who has done any of the following completely
>> outside the context of the Django community or forums is now not welcome
>> to participate:
>>
>
> You mention a number of things you aren't allowed
James,
I'm completely aware of the kind of situation you're describing in some
technical communities. I also don't find any evidence of it whatsoever in
ours, as I've pointed out repeatedly and have repeatedly asked for evidence
of by those who think a speech and behavior code is justifiable.
s
> that underlie this entire debate and uncomfortable with participating as a
> non-native speaker, as the topic is too sensitive to allow for
> approximative vocabulary.
>
> That said, may I suggest kindly that you cool down a bit and read what
> others write?
>
> --
> Aym
onduct code on
the entire universe without any context of having anything to do with
Django. Nothing good can come of this.
-- Ben
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 2:12 AM, Aymeric Augustin <
aymeric.augus...@polytechnique.org> wrote:
> On 9 sept. 2014, at 19:54, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
>
Kevin,
Again I believe your heart is in the right place but the presumption in
your message is that there are people who need and deserve special
protection above and beyond other members of the community. While, well
intentioned, we all know how the road to hell got paved. A good policy is
on
ommunity. If this is the case, and they already have total
>>> control should they choose to exercise it, a Django ASBO won't give any
>>> extra power over - and thus protection against - griefers/bullies/whatever.
>>>
>>> Just to hedge my bets, if the group d
Hi Kevin,
And thanx for responding to my question about the need for such a policy
with Django. Last night, as I had not yet had a response from anyone about
this question I searched the archives of both django groups looking for any
events or circumstances in which the code of conduct was invo
mative policy stating how people should
conduct themselves and demonstrate good intentions without the need to
codify "evil things"? I think it accomplishes what you want to do and, best
of all, could actually work!
-- Ben Scherrey
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 6:56 PM, Daniele Procida wrote:
7;re concerned about the application of the policy,
> but it seems like you're (perhaps unintentionally) exaggerating the scope
> and purpose of the policy to support your point.
>
> --Stephen
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 12:16 AM, Benjamin Scherrey
> wrote:
>
>&g
nd this) email and
attempt to be responsive to it's content.
thank you,
-- Ben Scherrey
On Mon, Sep 8, 2014 at 3:04 AM, Daniele Procida wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 8, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> >Nothing you've written disagrees with what I said, nor do you address
niele Procida wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 7, 2014, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
> >Number 84 sounds fine. #86 is just looking for trouble. You were wise in
> 84
> >to keep it positive and not enumerate a list of "banned" behaviour. To
> have
> >86 be anything be
Number 84 sounds fine. #86 is just looking for trouble. You were wise in 84
to keep it positive and not enumerate a list of "banned" behaviour. To have
86 be anything beyond providing a weapon to be used by anyone looking to be
"victimized" in order to silence those whom they disagree with, you wou
ut my proposal does indeed result in a very different semantic ultimately.
Thanx for the feedback. Guess I'll keep wrapping it outside of the core
code.
-- Ben
On Thu, Aug 28, 2014 at 5:35 PM, Tom Evans wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 27, 2014 at 10:19 PM, Benjamin Scherrey
> wrote:
> &g
east postgres 9.4 and will use the jsonb data type
> which does have an equality operator.
>
>
> On 27 August 2014 21:04, Benjamin Scherrey wrote:
>
>> Apologies for the cross-post. I imagine this is actually where this
>> proposal belongs. Would anyone be interested in gett
--
From: Benjamin Scherrey
Date: Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:58 PM
Subject: Improvement to objects.get_or_create and objects.update_or_create
To: django-users
Just want to run an idea by the list for a feature improvement for the
oft-used convenience functions get_or_create and update_or_create. I&#x
21 matches
Mail list logo
