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.
That's a fair enough criticism and I'll own it. I have been -- and still am -- unwilling to compromise. I accept that such an attitude is difficult to listen to, and I apologize for the part my unwillingness to compromise played in failing to find a resolution. For your part, though, I hope that you'll accept that your stubbornness has more or less matched mine here. You have a preconceived notion of the usefulness of this feature and have refused to address any information that contradicts that notion. Similarly, you seem to believe that you speak on behalf of PyPI's users but can only cite private emails as evidence and ignore any public evidence to the contrary. If you've indeed been listening to my concerns you've done a poor job indicating that you hear me. > 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!? That's a completely unfair characterization of the conversation. You have no way of knowing that I've "ignored" your alternatives. In fact, I've read every single word of it, and indeed responded to at least one of your proposals in detail. You wrote: > If you can suggest a procedure that fairly > involves the end users also (which *frequently* had requested from > me that I provide this very feature), and they now say they don't > like this, I'd be willing to reconsider. To which I replied: > So something simple would be to let package authors provide a "feedback" link. I took your lack of response to mean that you think my suggestion is a bad idea, and fair enough. But I'm not going to characterize your lack of response as ignoring me. It's incredibly insulting to allege that I'm ignoring your suggestions. > Apparently, you cannot accept anything else but the total removal of > the feature, which I honestly think doesn't reflect the needs of the > majority of the Python users. We're back to this, again: you have this firm belief that you speak for the majority of Python users. Well, I believe the same: I'm speaking on the behalf of the majority of Python users, too. Of course, neither of us can prove that assertion. Jacob _______________________________________________ Catalog-SIG mailing list Catalog-SIG@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/catalog-sig
