Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-15 Thread julian...@fsfe.org 
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 8:14:44 PM UTC+3 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize 
and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In 
the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more 
thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.


 We are grateful for the trust that the community put into us in handling 
violations of our Code of Conduct. We will continue to enforce the Code of 
Conduct, privately, and when we deem it necessary, in public.

The SageMath Code of Conduct Committee

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/87aeabf7-4da5-4bff-bfaf-057616eb6e3dn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-12 Thread jplab 


Dear all,

The Code of Conduct Committee considered the issue and found no need for 
David to recuse himself as requested.


We would like to use this opportunity to clarify that messages sent by any 
of us and signed as “The Code of Conduct Committee” have been approved by 
the entire committee. The person sending that message is just the 
messenger, the one who volunteered to send the message at an agreed time.


Sincerely,

The Code of Conduct Committee


Le vendredi 12 avril 2024 à 15:00:51 UTC-4, Matthias Koeppe a écrit :

> I have asked David Roe to recuse himself from any further 
> discussions/actions involving me in the CoCC.
>
> The persistent refusal to make a distinction between *abusive conduct* and 
> *calling out abuse* has caused too much damage already.
>
> Matthias
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 9:28:40 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:
>
> We have received messages from several people that the level of discord on 
> display between Dima and Matthias makes them feel uncomfortable 
> participating on this email list. To protect the community from this 
> acrimony, we are for now restricting Dima and Matthias to moderated 
> contributions on sage-devel.  We are sad in taking this step, and are 
> continuing to work privately with both Dima and Matthias to resolve this 
> conflict.
> David
> for the sage-conduct committee
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:30 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
>
> Reported.
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:
>
> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>
> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as “artificial 
> friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>
>
> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing 
> opposing *opinions*.
>
>
> Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as "persistent 
> abusive conduct", see e.g. your
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139
>
> I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
> Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not 
> permanently. Enough is enough. 
>
> Dima
>
>
> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent, 
> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others. 
>
>
> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in 
> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse 
> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to 
> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment 
> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of 
> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>
> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize 
> and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In 
> the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more 
> thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/27698335-4c51-4012-bf81-3e55bfbcd15bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-12 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
I have asked David Roe to recuse himself from any further 
discussions/actions involving me in the CoCC.

The persistent refusal to make a distinction between *abusive conduct* and 
*calling out abuse* has caused too much damage already.

Matthias

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 9:28:40 PM UTC-7 David Roe wrote:

We have received messages from several people that the level of discord on 
display between Dima and Matthias makes them feel uncomfortable 
participating on this email list. To protect the community from this 
acrimony, we are for now restricting Dima and Matthias to moderated 
contributions on sage-devel.  We are sad in taking this step, and are 
continuing to work privately with both Dima and Matthias to resolve this 
conflict.
David
for the sage-conduct committee

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:30 PM Matthias Koeppe  
wrote:

Reported.

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe  
wrote:

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:

We have carefully reviewed [...]

We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as “artificial 
friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.


Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing 
opposing *opinions*.


Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as "persistent 
abusive conduct", see e.g. your
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139

I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not 
permanently. Enough is enough. 

Dima
   

With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent, 
non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others. 


These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in 
plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse 
and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to 
sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment 
(and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of 
conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.

I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize 
and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In 
the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more 
thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/cbfb6e1c-f04e-41c8-9ca3-f08af2469bean%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread David Roe 
We have received messages from several people that the level of discord on
display between Dima and Matthias makes them feel uncomfortable
participating on this email list. To protect the community from this
acrimony, we are for now restricting Dima and Matthias to moderated
contributions on sage-devel.  We are sad in taking this step, and are
continuing to work privately with both Dima and Matthias to resolve this
conflict.
David
for the sage-conduct committee

On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 7:30 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> Reported.
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe 
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>>>
>>> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as
>>> “artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
>>> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other
>>> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing
>>> opposing *opinions*.
>>>
>>
>> Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as
>> "persistent abusive conduct", see e.g. your
>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139
>>
>> I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
>> Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not
>> permanently. Enough is enough.
>>
>> Dima
>>
>>
>>> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent,
>>> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others.
>>>
>>
>>> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in
>>> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse
>>> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to
>>> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment
>>> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of
>>> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>>>
>>> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to
>>> recognize and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to
>>> master. In the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already,
>>> more thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>>>
>>> --
>>> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4ec2449a-90cc-479a-be88-723f7f9135cfn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAChs6_nieEkQP%3DZLTv_ZQge%3Dc7%2BD7zbbjuseRK3tRy%2Bakj_-hA%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread 'tobia...@gmx.de' via sage-devel 
> 4. Please vote -1 on https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36580, 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36753, and 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138, which attempt to obstruct the 
modularization project and the mechanism for the distribution on PyPI. 

Please refrain from such unfounded and wrong accusations. The purpose of 
these PRs is to solve concrete problems. If there are conflicts with the 
modularization project, we can discuss these technical questions and try to 
find a solution (perhaps by changing the PR, or by slightly changing the 
design of the modularization distributions). Please also don't use the 
modularization project as a political tool to prevent PR from being merged. 
For example in https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36753 you claim that 
it conflicts with the modularization project (and this is then cited by 
others as the reason for their -1) but so far you have not given a single 
example where the CI or some documented behavior is actually broken (you 
only have given slight change in behavior in an artificial edge case).

I would also kindly ask the developers working on 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676 to not consider the vote on 
this PR as a vote on the question weather we should proceed with the whole 
modularization project. I'm actually a fan of the modularization and would 
like to see it come into reality. But that doesn't mean that one cannot 
question certain design choices in the modularization project. Concerning 
this particular PR, there is no technical need for the addition of these 
`all_xyz` files and multiple different solutions have to be proposed. Such 
technical question should be open for discussion, especially since they 
have not been discussed before (the general program has been discussed on 
the mailing list, but many details of the modularization project have not). 
So please let's try to not load the discussion by unnecessary politics.

On Thursday, April 11, 2024 at 7:30:15 AM UTC+8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:

> Reported.
>
> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe  
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>>>
>>> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as 
>>> “artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
>>> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
>>> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>>>
>>>
>>> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing 
>>> opposing *opinions*.
>>>
>>
>> Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as 
>> "persistent abusive conduct", see e.g. your
>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139
>>
>> I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
>> Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not 
>> permanently. Enough is enough. 
>>
>> Dima
>>
>>
>>> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent, 
>>> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others. 
>>>
>>
>>> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in 
>>> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse 
>>> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to 
>>> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment 
>>> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of 
>>> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>>>
>>> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to 
>>> recognize and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to 
>>> master. In the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, 
>>> more thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com
>>>  
>>> 
>>> .
>>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/5d447573-1574-43d4-9127-7852f51acad9n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
Reported.

On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 3:39:56 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

> On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe  
> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org 
>> wrote:
>>
>> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>>
>> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as 
>> “artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
>> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
>> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>>
>>
>> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing 
>> opposing *opinions*.
>>
>
> Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as "persistent 
> abusive conduct", see e.g. your
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139
>
> I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
> Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not 
> permanently. Enough is enough. 
>
> Dima
>
>
>> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent, 
>> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others. 
>>
>
>> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in 
>> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse 
>> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to 
>> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment 
>> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of 
>> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>>
>> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize 
>> and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In 
>> the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more 
>> thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>>
>> -- 
>> 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+...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit 
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com
>>  
>> 
>> .
>>
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/4ec2449a-90cc-479a-be88-723f7f9135cfn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
On Wed, Apr 10, 2024 at 6:14 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:
>
> We have carefully reviewed [...]
>
> We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as “artificial
> friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other
> party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.
>
>
> Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing
> opposing *opinions*.
>

Matthias, you keep characterizing my input into discussions as "persistent
abusive conduct", see e.g. your
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36676#issuecomment-2048352139

I demand a public apology, and a lift of the block on GitHub.
Else Matthias should be banned from SageMath for a while, if not
permanently. Enough is enough.

Dima


> With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent,
> non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others.
>

> These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in
> plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse
> and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to
> sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment
> (and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of
> conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.
>
> I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize
> and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In
> the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more
> thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.
>
> --
> 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 view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq3kPjHk8-_b69xesUWXgB51bXH3stkrw1_A%2Bet6c6Pq0Q%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread Dima Pasechnik 



On 10 April 2024 21:50:43 CEST, Matthias Koeppe  
wrote:
>On Monday, April 8, 2024 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
>
>On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe  wrote:
>
> You will find the comments in these PRs instructive -- also as 
>illustration for a (long overdue) *discussion about governance and review 
>standards* in the Sage project.
>
>
>*1. Please vote +1 on both https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36561 
> and 
>https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138 
>* ("Move metadata from 
>setup.cfg to pyproject.toml").
>These are trivial "chore" PRs. They update metadata of our pip-installable 
>packages "sage-conf" and "sagemath-standard" to the latest format.
>These straightforward and appropriately focused PRs have been held back by 
>months by *bundling the review of the PRs with unrelated issues.* I call 
>this "artificial friction"; see the discussion in the PRs. To help overcome 
>this artificial friction, please vote.
>
>
>This is not true - the friction is not artificial. It is due to legitimate 
>concerns of developers who are not interested in
>spending all of their time on ever growing "Sage the distribution", and/or 
>who see little merit in Matthias' sagelib modulalisation
>project, which uses Python features (most of all, namespace packages)
>not universally supported by a number of important tools, such as  Cython 
>and pytest.
>
>Please vote -1 on these two PRs (there are more similar PRs around). This 
>will force Matthias to reconsider his priorities [...]
>
>
>What Dima is describing here is exactly the inappropriate bundling that I 
>have called out.

There seems to be nothing else, short of a project fork, to make Matthias 
reconsider.


> It's a violation of our standards of review.

By calling out for a mass vote you have essentially asked for such a violation.

Otherwise the whole thing about designing PRs by massive voting is a massive 
waste of developers' time, as normal reviewing can be a time-consuming process, 
in particular if the PR concerns a not a very familiar topic.


>
>As majority voting on PRs is our current conflict resolution mechanism: 
>All, please vote.
>
So what exactly are you asking for? For reviews, or for massive violation of 
our reviewing standards?

Dima

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/062AA6C5-23E9-4CDC-A74D-D8FA8E1D606E%40gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
On Monday, April 8, 2024 at 5:19:02 PM UTC-7 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe  wrote:

 You will find the comments in these PRs instructive -- also as 
illustration for a (long overdue) *discussion about governance and review 
standards* in the Sage project.


*1. Please vote +1 on both https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36561 
 and 
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138 
* ("Move metadata from 
setup.cfg to pyproject.toml").
These are trivial "chore" PRs. They update metadata of our pip-installable 
packages "sage-conf" and "sagemath-standard" to the latest format.
These straightforward and appropriately focused PRs have been held back by 
months by *bundling the review of the PRs with unrelated issues.* I call 
this "artificial friction"; see the discussion in the PRs. To help overcome 
this artificial friction, please vote.


This is not true - the friction is not artificial. It is due to legitimate 
concerns of developers who are not interested in
spending all of their time on ever growing "Sage the distribution", and/or 
who see little merit in Matthias' sagelib modulalisation
project, which uses Python features (most of all, namespace packages)
not universally supported by a number of important tools, such as  Cython 
and pytest.

Please vote -1 on these two PRs (there are more similar PRs around). This 
will force Matthias to reconsider his priorities [...]


What Dima is describing here is exactly the inappropriate bundling that I 
have called out. It's a violation of our standards of review.

As majority voting on PRs is our current conflict resolution mechanism: 
All, please vote.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/402cec70-a7b7-460e-9ed4-fbc1466a5e3bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread Matthias Koeppe 
On Wednesday, April 10, 2024 at 6:49:11 AM UTC-7 julian...@fsfe.org wrote:

We have carefully reviewed [...]

We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as “artificial 
friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate.


Julian, please, that's highly inappropriate. I'm not characterizing 
opposing *opinions*.
With this terminology I'm describing the modes of existing, persistent, 
non-constructive *actions* on these PRs by others.

These are not "allegations"; what I am describing has been happening in 
plain sight, is fully documented, and has been reported to the sage-abuse 
and CoCC committees. As you know, some of these have already led to 
sanctions by the committees, while I am still waiting for acknowledgment 
(and clear actions) regarding numerous reported violations of our code of 
conduct (and reviewing code) by the current committee.

I do understand that the new committee is still learning how to recognize 
and handle abuse; it's a complicated and challenging topic to master. In 
the meantime, as I have asked the committee in private already, more 
thoughtful restraint in issuing public reprimands is necessary.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/2bdbf209-edc2-4a0d-9b4c-de1c665d406bn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread kcrisman 



Please don't!


+1 for sure

> The modularization project (making pip-installation packages that contain 
portions of the sage library) started years ago with a general consensus of 
the sage community. Matthias led the project and did most of hard works. 
Many others did not care much about the project and still do not feel the 
impact except when encountered with the (annoying) "# needs ..." tags. 
 Matthias is also managing much of the sage build system and the CI (mostly 
testing infrastructure) on github, partly to support the modularization 
project. Many of us would appreciate that.

Also +1 for sure

> Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate. Please keep 
this thread to a simple explanation of the issues at hand, so that 
interested community members can make an informed decision on their vote 
(or on whether to vote at all).

+1 to both times this was said (even though I'm violating "issues at hand" 
with this comment)

It's worth noting that "whether to vote at all" is, as typical in Sage, 
mostly being honored by not voting.  Trac was similar - it was often hard 
to get people to review even simple tickets that weren't squarely in 
people's domain of experience within the vast Sage library.  For those of 
us who don't really know that much about .toml files, packaging, or 
modularization, we would like to trust that some roadmap that addresses all 
concerns *in an acceptable, if quite imperfect, compromise* can be come up 
with by those who *do* have expertise in those matters.  

But they'll have to ignore the personal/political matter, hard as it might 
be.  *Even if it's true* that there is "sabotage" or "refusing to assess" 
(which this post remains neutral on), if it is *possible* to interpret a 
code change request as being well-intentioned and helping some aspect of 
packaging, then that should be done.  Until such time as another Sage Days 
*in person* could be held on a topic like packaging, the best operating 
procedure for online-only discussions is to give the most charitable 
possible interpretation to a given code request - and refrain from any 
comments that imply ill will on the part of another, *even if you think 
there is ill will*.  (Then the truly ill willed statements will be clear, 
at least, instead of currently sometimes being themselves ambiguous.)

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/bb7c57ca-1f3d-4d07-8761-6214a150a179n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread julian...@fsfe.org 
Matthias,

We have carefully reviewed the arguments people have brought for and 
against the disputed PRs and find it credible that both sides have genuine 
concerns. We therefore disagree with characterizing opposing opinions as 
“artificial friction”, “hostile demands”, or an “attempt to sabotage”.
Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate. Please keep 
this thread to a simple explanation of the issues at hand, so that 
interested community members can make an informed decision on their vote 
(or on whether to vote at all).

The Code of Conduct Committee

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/285931f0-7164-471e-b94f-af411517cdcbn%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-10 Thread 'Martin R' via sage-devel 
Please don't!

Martin

On Wednesday 10 April 2024 at 00:39:39 UTC+2 Dima Pasechnik wrote:

> I think I will quit the Sage project as soon as decisions on technical 
> merits of PRs and issues will start to be taken in a nakedly political way.
>
> I am very strongly against any political overtones in  these matters - it 
> reminds me all too well what's wrong is in academia in general.
>
> Dima
>
>
>
>
> On 9 April 2024 11:21:46 CEST, Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Reviewing a PR is a technical work, but voting on a disputed PR has a 
>> political element. So I want to make a political remark concerning most of 
>> the disputed PRs.
>>
>> The modularization project (making pip-installation packages that contain 
>> portions of the sage library) started years ago with a general consensus of 
>> the sage community. Matthias led the project and did most of hard works. 
>> Many others did not care much about the project and still do not feel the 
>> impact except when encountered with the (annoying) "# needs ..." tags.
>>
>> Matthias is also managing much of the sage build system and the CI 
>> (mostly testing infrastructure) on github, partly to support the 
>> modularization project. Many of us would appreciate that.
>>
>> Certainly Matthias is not an appointed dictator ruling the developers, 
>> but I think we should at least acknowledge the leading role of him in the 
>> area of his expertise. On technical discussions on PRs, we should give more 
>> weight on his opinions from his expertise.
>>
>> I hope that you decide your vote by weighing the conflicting arguments on 
>> the issues.
>>
>> Kwankyu
>>
>>

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/9364a6ee-f5e2-4cdf-ba13-ee8242335145n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-09 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
I think I will quit the Sage project as soon as decisions on technical merits 
of PRs and issues will start to be taken in a nakedly political way.

I am very strongly against any political overtones in  these matters - it 
reminds me all too well what's wrong is in academia in general.

Dima




On 9 April 2024 11:21:46 CEST, Kwankyu Lee  wrote:
>Hi,
>
>Reviewing a PR is a technical work, but voting on a disputed PR has a 
>political element. So I want to make a political remark concerning most of 
>the disputed PRs.
>
>The modularization project (making pip-installation packages that contain 
>portions of the sage library) started years ago with a general consensus of 
>the sage community. Matthias led the project and did most of hard works. 
>Many others did not care much about the project and still do not feel the 
>impact except when encountered with the (annoying) "# needs ..." tags.
>
>Matthias is also managing much of the sage build system and the CI (mostly 
>testing infrastructure) on github, partly to support the modularization 
>project. Many of us would appreciate that.
>
>Certainly Matthias is not an appointed dictator ruling the developers, but 
>I think we should at least acknowledge the leading role of him in the area 
>of his expertise. On technical discussions on PRs, we should give more 
>weight on his opinions from his expertise.
>
>I hope that you decide your vote by weighing the conflicting arguments on 
>the issues.
>
>Kwankyu
>
>-- 
>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 view this discussion on the web visit 
>https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3b6b30f7-efea-4812-b5b7-0e1f5894f975n%40googlegroups.com.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/01429D75-1154-433D-AC95-8B336A9FD754%40gmail.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-09 Thread Kwankyu Lee 
Hi,

Reviewing a PR is a technical work, but voting on a disputed PR has a 
political element. So I want to make a political remark concerning most of 
the disputed PRs.

The modularization project (making pip-installation packages that contain 
portions of the sage library) started years ago with a general consensus of 
the sage community. Matthias led the project and did most of hard works. 
Many others did not care much about the project and still do not feel the 
impact except when encountered with the (annoying) "# needs ..." tags.

Matthias is also managing much of the sage build system and the CI (mostly 
testing infrastructure) on github, partly to support the modularization 
project. Many of us would appreciate that.

Certainly Matthias is not an appointed dictator ruling the developers, but 
I think we should at least acknowledge the leading role of him in the area 
of his expertise. On technical discussions on PRs, we should give more 
weight on his opinions from his expertise.

I hope that you decide your vote by weighing the conflicting arguments on 
the issues.

Kwankyu

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/3b6b30f7-efea-4812-b5b7-0e1f5894f975n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-08 Thread Nils Bruin 
Dima,

I am writing as a member of the Code of Conduct concerning one particular 
phrase from your message 
https://groups.google.com/g/sage-devel/c/Wjw2wcvgf8k/m/ynwiz66_AQAJ :

> This will force Matthias to reconsider his priorities, and enable other 
voices to be heard. So far, Matthias refuses to reassess the priorities of 
the project - instead he puts away the criticism as "abuse" directed at him.

Such allegations will have no effect other than to antagonize the other 
party. This is not helpful in fostering constructive debate. Please keep 
this thread to a simple explanation of the issues at hand, so that 
interested community members can make an informed decision on their vote 
(or on whether to vote at all).

Sincerely,
Nils, on behalf of the code of conduct committee.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/8b339612-1118-457d-afcb-13bf17e72fd3n%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-08 Thread Nils Bruin 
Thank you, Matthias, for drawing attention to votes on tickets that have 
gained "disputed" state and were not getting much attention. If we're going 
to decide these tickets by voting, then having a more representative voting 
population should help in getting a more representative result.

Thank you, Dima and Gareth for providing opposing opinions to Matthias' 
interpretation of the matter. These are "disputed" tickets after all, so in 
the discussions of these tickets no arguments arose that convinced all 
sides on the best road forward. It makes sense that potential voters 
receive "campaign materials" from all sides.

I am happy to see Matthias and Dima agreeing that this voting procedure has 
draw-backs. It's only meant as a band-aid solution to get items unstuck in 
the absence of consensus. Shall we just give it a try? It may not lead to 
technically optimal solutions in all cases, but at least it's a procedure 
that is easily seen as "fair". None of the decisions made are definitive -- 
perhaps finding consensus on a different solution is easier once another 
has been tried and new patches can be made.

I think Dima has a good point that a clearer roadmap for sagemath would 
probably help in making it easier to reach consensus instead. A technical 
committee with some authority could help, but only if *they* can reach 
consensus. From my perspective as a member of the CoC committee, I would 
urge the community to have a bit of patience. We are making our way through 
a backlog of issues that quite probably have a root cause in lack of 
agreed-upon direction in the sagemath project and we do hope to come with 
some recommendations for improving the situation in the near future.

I am writing this as a community member, but informed by my service on the 
CoCC and a desire to not see the workload of the CoCC increase.

Nils

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/31facf11-39cd-4246-97fa-cc75584602ban%40googlegroups.com.

Re: [sage-devel] Urgent: Please vote on these "disputed" PRs

2024-04-08 Thread Dima Pasechnik 
On Mon, Apr 8, 2024 at 7:19 PM Matthias Koeppe 
wrote:

> I need your help on these PRs. Please vote.
>
> Special expertise is not required for voting. You will find the comments
> in these PRs instructive -- also as illustration for a (long overdue) 
> *discussion
> about governance and review standards* in the Sage project.
>

> *1. Please vote +1 on both https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36561
>  and
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37138
> * ("Move metadata from
> setup.cfg to pyproject.toml").
> These are trivial "chore" PRs. They update metadata of our
> pip-installable packages "sage-conf" and "sagemath-standard" to the latest
> format.
> These straightforward and appropriately focused PRs have been held back by
> months by *bundling the review of the PRs with unrelated issues.* I call
> this "artificial friction"; see the discussion in the PRs. To help overcome
> this artificial friction, please vote.
>

This is not true - the friction is not artificial. It is due to legitimate
concerns of developers who are not interested in
spending all of their time on ever growing "Sage the distribution", and/or
who see little merit in Matthias' sagelib modulalisation
project, which uses Python features (most of all, namespace packages)
not universally supported by a number of important tools, such as  Cython
and pytest.

Please vote -1 on these two PRs (there are more similar PRs around). This
will force Matthias to reconsider his priorities, and enable
other voices to be heard. So far, Matthias refuses to reassess the
priorities of the project - instead he puts away
the criticism as "abuse" directed at him.

As a result of this friction, a number of developers have left or about to
leave the project, or are discussing
creation of a hard fork of Sage.

In particular, I think it is urgent to re-access the need for sagelib
modularisation in its current form.
It appears to be harming the project, and its benefits are questionable.

As well, it's urgent to make Sage more modular on the level of Sage the
distribution - the "interesting" part, sagelib,
is getting increasingly entangled in Sage the distribution (which is just a
constantly growing pile of Jupyter, Python, ans Sphinx-related
packages, which Matthias and few others are all too keen on hoarding).
This in particular makes Sage harder and harder to package for Linux, and
other, distributions (Packaging of Sage for Debian/Ubuntu and
Fedora has been stalled for years already).


> *2. Please vote -1 on both https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/37387
>  and
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36951
> . *These PRs are about a
> Developer Experience issue, namely the workflow on GitHub that notifies
> developers when the HTML documentation is ready for inspection by PR author
> and reviewers. Now a few developers have made it known that they are
> annoyed by the notifications (whether received by email or the notification
> tool on the GitHub website), and the PRs seek to turn off most or all of
> the notifications. That *these notifications enable a productive
> notification-driven development style, and that the notifications serve the
> project's need for quality control on the formatted documentation*, has
> not received meaningful consideration.
>

We are not an enterprise with full-time developers 24 hours a day ready to
react to these endless notifications.
They are spam for almost everyone, and should be turned off.
Please, please vote +1 on them.

What's happening on these PRs is exactly what I had cautioned about in
> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pull/36726#issuecomment-1820148873
> regarding the (then-proposed, now established) system of majority votes as
> a conflict resolution mechanism for PRs. To balance it, we need the
> involvement of the larger developer community: please vote.
>

No, what we really need is an honest general discussion on directions the
project is taking.
Right now it's going  nowhere, to ever growing pile of bugs noone even
talks about addressing (e.g. Pynac; Maxima;
memory leaks related to Singular; etc etc), to huge package bloat, etc.

Dima

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/sage-devel/CAAWYfq1RJSA_WNgvjdiSboxYJ2e7X3h2bwOYh_du82aekdtO0A%40mail.gmail.com.