On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 7:33 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" <mar...@v.loewis.de> wrote: > What IMO made this discussion unsuccessful is that you seem to be > unwilling to compromise. I can accept that the specific implementation > is ill-designed, and I'm willing to change it, and have offered a number > of alternatives - all of which you have ignored.
What made this unsuccessful, and what made the last round unsuccessful, and what will make the next round unsuccessful, and the one after that, etc., is a couple of simple facts: 1. The only evidence presented for benefits of ratings is a couple of anecdotes and some vague hand-waving about people who've emailed you, but who won't be identified or quoted. 2. The people who are, right now, presenting you with reasonable criticism and asking you to disable this feature are the very people who make PyPI worthwhile: the package maintainers. Our concerns are just as valid as anyone's, and without us PyPI is a blank web page. But we get ignored in favor of the anonymous masses who -- you claim -- support, want and dearly love this feature despite basically never actually using it. This is not reasonable and this is not acceptable, and is not the first time we've reached this impasse. What is required here is for you to accept that package maintainers can actually raise valid concerns, and that being responsive to those concerns and accommodating them is vitally necessary for PyPI's continued existence. If you're unable to do that, please let us know so that steps can be taken to deal with the problem. -- "Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct." _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
