On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 06:49 -0800, William Stein wrote:
> Dear Sage Developers,
>
> 1. There are over 20 pull requests labeled as "disputed" [1]. To
> resolve these pull requests, we will be appointing an editor with no
> direct involvement in the pull request to make a judgement call on
> that p
Maybe it would make sense to appoint a group of editors, rather than a
single editor, and this group decides per vote? I'd feel much better if
the responsibility is at least a little bit distributed between several
people, and, most importantly, people who have been around for some time.
(Plea
Appointing an editor is not supposed to be part of normal review. This is
for the (hopefully rare) cases where we, the community, horribly failed in
the code review process and for whatever reason no consensus can be found
among the issue participants. The code review should have been a
coopera
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 3:21:54 PM UTC Michael Orlitzky wrote:
On Wed, 2024-01-10 at 06:49 -0800, William Stein wrote:
> Dear Sage Developers,
>
> 1. There are over 20 pull requests labeled as "disputed" [1]. To
> resolve these pull requests, we will be appointing an editor with no
Many of these are disputed for the same underlying reasons. Appointing
a different editor for each PR is not likely to help. If you pick an
editor from Camp A, he or she will always rule in favor of Camp A; pick
an editor from Camp B...
The camps are roughly split across the question whethe
I just followed a few of the links Matthias posted today, and I must admit
that I do not understand a word.
Karl pointed out that:
> I don't think it's off-topic to once again point out that this way of
phrasing it is very developer-centric. That's not a wrong way to look at
it, but an end-use
On Friday, January 12, 2024 at 6:38:31 PM UTC+9 Martin R wrote:
I just followed a few of the links Matthias posted today, and I must admit
that I do not understand a word.
That is normal. Just imagine that you are a passenger on a cruise and
happened to enter to the engine room of the ship by
> I don't think it's off-topic to once again point out that this way of
phrasing it is very developer-centric. That's not a wrong way to look at
it, but an end-user-centric way of looking at it is also valid.
It seems to me that "developer" here refers to a very different kind of
developer
