On Sat, 3 Dec 2022 at 14:46, Yoni Lavi <yoni.lav...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > I think this is over-complicating things. I think the key merit of your > > original proposal was its simplicity. Proposing more complicated ways of > > getting the result you want is (IMO) unlikely to succeed, and is only > > likely to cause people to become even more entrenched in their positions. > > Can you give any explanation of why this proposal is better than your > > original one, *apart* from "it's not been rejected yet"? > > It does sidestep the "There is nothing special about None" argument which > IS the reason cited for rejecting the previous change. > OK, but it also reframes the problem as being about security, not about reproducibility, which feels like trying to make the issue more "scary" in the hope that people might care more. > OTOH, you are still right, in the sense that I know that no matter what > exactly I propose, there WILL be a way to view it negatively. That's true of every proposal, and while I sympathise with your disillusionment, I don't think looking at it that way will help your case. > (BTW: did you see the 2nd flavor of my proposal in the P.S. where I > *don't* get what I want)? > If by that you mean the "other way to implement the security fix", I saw it but discounted it. I think the security aspect is a red herring. I originally mentioned it as a "we should check" suggestion, but people who know have all (as far as I can see) said there's no security risk here, so I think we should drop the security related arguments. I'm having trouble staying away from the discussion - I tried once and > failed. Other people continue to talk about it, then I join again. > Me too :-) But I suggest seeing other people talking about it as a good thing. Don't try to have the last word (something I find myself doing way too often), but instead think that if people are talking, they are trying to form their own views - and repeating yours won't add anything new, but might distract people who were gradually coming to see your way of thinking. Oscar Benjamin made a good argument recently in one of the threads. People *are* helping make your point, you don't need to interject with "look, see, this is what I meant!" every time. You've sown the seed, let it grow. > But it might be best if I leave the discussion or at least my position as > the person who's proposing this change. Don't feel so tied to "owning" the proposal. You started a conversation, it's got people thinking, wait and see what consensus forms. I still think you pushed *way* too hard initially, and came across as not being willing to listen to counter-arguments, but there's no reason you can't back off a little and learn from that experience. Many proposals generate huge discussion threads, but eventually fail because everyone digs their heels in (this is what I think Chris Angelico perceives as "making proposals run the gauntlet"). Letting ideas grow and develop, being willing to give people time to decide, has a very different feel to it, but it requires the proposer to let the debate happen, and *guide* it, rather than controlling it. In my experience, not many new proposers know how to do this (or they don't care enough to try). This is a tiny change, almost insignificant in terms of benefits and consequences. But it's a chance to learn the dynamics of making a proposal, and understanding how to influence the direction of a discussion. Even if the proposal ultimately fails, learning more about that is good. (Sorry, re-reading that it sounds rather patronising. I don't mean it to, but I do know that I see lots of people commenting that there's a lot more "politics" and "people skills" to open source than they realised, and this is a really good example of that in action, so I couldn't resist pointing it out). > Forget about the PR/issue and start over. Perhaps someone else needs to > push for it. A core dev, so their opinion on the matter will count for > something. I really hope that the take-away here *isn't* that only the opinions of core devs matter. It's true that only core devs can make changes, but if we ever reach a point where community opinions aren't important, we've failed badly. What *is* true, is that Python is big enough that *every* change has to be considered in terms of the overall value to the whole community. Core devs have to make those sorts of judgements a lot, so their views have weight. With a community member, it's often not clear whether they are a new contributor with a "great idea" but no experience in handling big open source projects, or someone who's highly experienced in a different community that we just don't know about. So "show that you can argue your point and persuade people - or at least learn how to do so" is a challenge non-core devs need to navigate to be heard. But it's not impossible to do so, and it's not a failure if you struggle learning how to get your points across. Also, people are people, and we all have bad days when we're simply grumpy, argumentative, or even downright obstructive :-) Not all disagreements are rational. > Until then, it's not a productive use of our collective time to discuss it > any further. > Almost everyone here is doing this as a hobby or for fun. So "productive" isn't really the measure. As long as people are *enjoying* the debate, it's worthwhile. Paul
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list -- python-dev@python.org To unsubscribe send an email to python-dev-le...@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman3/lists/python-dev.python.org/ Message archived at https://mail.python.org/archives/list/python-dev@python.org/message/ALNWKKZUCHJEM2SEPCKBZ3JWHQWEZ6OR/ Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
