Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
> Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority > automatically gets veto rights. 'Striving' for consensus does imply some attempt to get to grips with the arguments, and working on some compromise to accommodate both parties. It seems to me there was very great latitude for finding such a comprise here, but Travis has terminated the discussion and I see no sign of a compromise. "Striving for consensus" can't of course be regulated. The desire has to be there. It's probably true, as Nathaniel says, that there isn't much you can do to legislate on that. We can only try to persuade. I was trying to do that, I failed, I'll have to look back and see if there was something else I could have done that would have been more useful to the same end, Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
