Paul Moore <p.f.mo...@gmail.com> writes: > On 28 July 2015 at 13:35, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > > People can, do, and probably must make many decisions through > > non-rational processes. I don't propose to change that. > > Good. > > > Choices can be made that, when challenged, lack compelling rational > > justification. I do propose that such a challenge should be taken as a > > healthy desire to improve Python, not a personal attack. > > While that is fine, you appear unwilling to accept the possibility > that people may not have the time/energy to develop a detailed > rational justification for a change that they have made, and demanding > that they do so when they are offering the time they do give on a > volunteer basis, is what I claim is unacceptable.
I've said many times now that's not what I'm advocating. I've made a clear distinction between the need to *be able to* justify a change, versus arbitrary demands to do so by arbitrary members. The latter is what you're arguing against, and of course I agree. I've never advocated that. > The issue is not one of your motives in asking for explanations - it's > the implication that you are entitled to require others to *provide* > those explanations, to whatever level of detail *you* require. Hopefully this repetition is enough: I do not claim any such entitlement. > I hope that clarifies my position. Likewise. Thanks for engaging. -- \ “… correct code is great, code that crashes could use | `\ improvement, but incorrect code that doesn’t crash is a | _o__) horrible nightmare.” —Chris Smith, 2008-08-22 | Ben Finney _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
