On Thu, Nov 27, 2014 at 11:48:01AM +0530, Nathann Cohen wrote:
> I understand.
:-)
> I also understand that nobody in your short-list could feel entitled to
> give the others' name, but this can be solved easily: would you be
> willing to send them an email and ask whether they object to this
> request ? Somebody could then answer this question, or tell us that
> some members do not want to reveal their identity.
They are grown up and read sage-devel :-) I'll just add that this was
a diverse smallish group of people from three different continents.
> ... about how this was run ...
As I said: I certainly agree, in retrospect, that things could have
been done better. But I see it as rather pointless to discuss further
the how and why given that nothing irreversible was decided: William
explicitly left the door open. And even if he had not, we, as a
community, rule.
Now what we need to do is to build a 2.0. We all agree that
"friendliness" can't be imposed by law. Whatever document is up at the
end will be effective if and only if the community, as a whole,
adheres to it. So yeah, let's build this consensus. And since some
people voiced strong opinions on how this shall be done, I am very
happy letting them take the lead :-)
> I know exactly how you feel. I have been trying to remind peole for
> two years of wrong results returned by Sage, I tried to fix it
> myself many many times only to find out I was not competent on this
> part of the code. I also tried to say that the way findstat was
> implemented in Sage could be less intrusive, and there were others
> examples. And yet I took this code of conduct to be against me even
> though I tried, clumsily and honestly, to make our code a better
> code.
Thanks for sharing!
I (and everybody else I believe) very much appreciate your hard work
toward making Sage more robust. There are indeed crappy things that
are horribly lagging behind (permutations, integerlistlex, ... ). I
know how frustrating it is when things don't move and we don't have
leverage. It's good to have someone pushing toward their
resolution. The question is only about the most effective way to
achieve this. I believe what people have been reacting against was
someone trying to impose them an agenda by leaning on their
guiltiness.
For findstat there was a lot of rambling around; but in practice the
reaching of a consensus and its implementation was a matter of a
couple hours. For the specific thing you have in mind, remember that
we don't agree on whether it was a bug or a missing feature. And we
don't have to agree, especially since the issue is now resolved
(thanks Anne! thanks Travis!).
In short: this was never meant against you as a person. But rather as
an attempt to foster the improvement of certain actions of you, among
others, and in fact of everybody, me first.
Cheers,
Nicolas
PS: I don't know whether this is related in anyway to that attempt;
and don't really care either. But your reading of that "Non Violent
Communication" book, and its immediate put to good use in your recent
e-mails, are a blessing. This is in fact the nicest gift I received in
a while :-)
--
Nicolas M. Thiéry "Isil" <nthi...@users.sf.net>
http://Nicolas.Thiery.name/
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"sage-devel" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
