[Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 4:24 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root at ou.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
>> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>>> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett
>>>> > <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Hi,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett
>>>> >> <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >> > Hi,
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>>> >> > <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett
>>>> >> >> <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >> wrote:
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> Hi,
>>>> >> >>>
>>>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
>>>> >> >>> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >>> >
>>>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett
>>>> >> >>> > <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> Hi,
>>>> >> >>> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>>> >> >>> >> <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >> >
>>>> >> >>> >> >
>>>> >> >>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett
>>>> >> >>> >> > <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>>>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> >> Hi,
>>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris
>>>> >> >>> >> >> <charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>>> >> >>> >> >> No, that's not what Nathaniel and I are saying at all.
>>>> >> >>> >> >> Nathaniel
>>>> >> >>> >> >> was
>>>> >> >>> >> >> pointing to links for projects that care that everyone
>>>> >> >>> >> >> agrees
>>>> >> >>> >> >> before
>>>> >> >>> >> >> they go ahead.
>>>> >> >>> >> >
>>>> >> >>> >> > It looked to me like there was a serious intent to come to
>>>> >> >>> >> > an
>>>> >> >>> >> > agreement,
>>>> >> >>> >> > or
>>>> >> >>> >> > at least closer together. The discussion in the summer was
>>>> >> >>> >> > going
>>>> >> >>> >> > around
>>>> >> >>> >> > in
>>>> >> >>> >> > circles though, and was too abstract and complex to follow.
>>>> You are repeating the loaded phrase 'ripping the current code out' and
>> thus making the discussion less sensible and more hostile.
>>
>>>  It isn't like it is (known
>>> to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis on which
>>> build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence committed by
>>> someone yet to make a positive contribution to the project.
>>
>> This is cheap, rude, and silly.  All I can see from Nathaniel is a
>> reasonable, fair attempt to discuss the code.  He proposed backing off
>> the code in good faith.   You are emphatically, and, in my view
>> childishly, ignoring the substantial points he is making, and
>> asserting over and over that he deserves no hearing because he has not
>> contributed code.   This is a terribly destructive way to work.  If I
>> was a new developer reading this, I would conclude, that I had better
>> be damn careful which side I'm on, before I express my opinion,
>> otherwise I'm going to be made to feel like I don't exist by the other
>> people on the project.  That is miserable, it is silly, and it's the
>> wrong way to do business.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>
> /me blows whistle. Personal foul against defense! Personal foul against
> offense! Penalties offset! Repeat first down.

Is that right?  I think I'm calling Charles on giving Nathaniel the
silent treatment.  Am I wrong to do that?   Is that not true?

See you,

Matthew