[Python-Dev] how to properly object to something (was: Distutils ML wrap-up: setup.cfg new format)

[Brett Cannon]

2009/9/22 Chris Withers <chris at simplistix.co.uk>:
> Brett Cannon wrote:
>>
>> OK, stop before it gets any nastier as your email already sounds rude,
>> Chris.
>
> Yes, apologies.

Thanks.

>
>> Since the language summit at PyCon 2009 various committers, including
>> me, have been encouraging Tarek to act as distutils dictator to get
>> things finished as we all know people are prone to bikeshedding that
>> would kill any forward momentum we have towards improving the
>> packaging situation.
>
> ...except that this isn't bikeshedding. Use of that term just to stifle
> productive discussion is also rude.

This sounds like a differing of opinion; Tarek doesn't think it's
critical, you do. Obviously that changes what the two of you view as
bikeshedding on this topic.

I also just checked the thread based on the link you and Sridhar sent
and I didn't see anyone publicly say they preferred Sridhar's version.
If people preferred Sridhar's version they should have spoken up.
While Sridhar's email came in Friday and Tarek pronounced Saturday (as
a reply to one of Sridhar's emails to his idea), that doesn't mean no
one could have spoken up over the the past three days in support of
Sridhar's idea if they preferred it regardless of what Tarek decided;
no code has been committed so decisions can be changed (gods know
plenty of people have said after Guido has pronounced "I disagree" and
no one has ever taken offense). So I don't think it's fair to claim
that Tarek is not listening considering his pronouncement was in reply
to one of the proposals you said he was ignoring.

In other words, Chris, you brought up objections to Tarek's decision
claiming he was ignoring two full days after he made it, and used as
support at least one email which no one publicly showed support for
and for which Tarek indirectly replied to when he made his decision.
So I see no evidence that Tarek is ignoring people's input from where
I stand. If you didn't like Tarek's final decision or preferred
Sridhar's idea then you should have replied to one of those emails
with at least a vote of +1/+0/-0/-1 over on the distutils-SIG, not
here. As of right now this feels like an end-run around Tarek using
extremely weak evidence which, in my opinion, is bikeshedding.

-Brett