On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:35 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
> wrote:
> > Hi Matthew,
> >
> > > it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring
> > > blueprint with a relatively small amount of effort.
> >
> > My sentence
Hi,
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
wrote:
> Hi Matthew,
>
>> it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint
>> with a relatively small amount of effort.
>
> My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of
> interests to PRs, that non
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk <
m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of
> interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone
> who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a
> s
Hi Matthew,
> it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint
> with a relatively small amount of effort.
My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of
interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone
who has a conflict of interest wit
Hi,
On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk
wrote:
> Hi All,
>
> First, it will be great to have more people developing! On avoiding
> potential conflicts: I'm not overly worried, in part because of my
> experience with astropy (for which NASA support developers at STScI
> and CXC).
