What is Install-Paths-To in WHEEL file?

[Left Right]

> You are conflating several different groups of people. The PyPA are
> the people who currently maintain the code for various
> libraries/tools. That is very often not the same as the people who
> originally wrote the code for the same libraries/tools or for
> preceding ones. Neither group is the same as the forum moderators (I
> suspect that there is no intersection between the moderators and the
> PyPA etc.).

I'm sorry to tell you, but you suspect wrong. Unfortunately, it's
always the same story. Whenever I or anyone else with a legitimate
complaint about larger projects managed by PyPA tries to bring this to
public discussion, they get banned and their comments about PyPA
activity removed.  It's always presented as if whoever is complaining
is disrespecting the hard work of the person replying, who usually
self-describe as selfless volunteer with limited time and attention
they are willing to grant to the one complaining (implying they either
are PyPA or are volunteering for them).  As if their time was
obviously more important than that was spent by the one complaining to
research the problem and put together the complaint.

This has nothing to do with the original authors of the projects
managed by PyPA. I don't know why you decided to bring this up.  I
haven't mentioned them.

> Actually you are wasting the time of others by putting across
> inaccurate and unhelpful information in a rude way and at the same
> time criticising others without really understanding who you are
> criticising and for what. Your contribution is unhelpful mostly (but
> not exclusively) because of the way that you choose to communicate.

No, I'm not _wasting_ anyone's time.  I bring up a legitimate issue
that needs solving.  What happens is a typical example of gatekeeping,
overestimating one's worth or the value of one's contribution.  The
time I had to waste because of the bad decisions made by PyPA is
orders of magnitude more than the time they have spent reading
whatever I wrote to them.

Point me to inaccurate information please.  I'm happy to be corrected.

Similarly, point me to where I was rude, and I will apologize.

Apparently, I have a better understanding of who I criticize and for
what than you do.  You need to at least be factual when you make these
sorts of claims.

It's not for you to choose the way I communicate. There are accepted
boundaries, and I'm well within those boundaries. Anything beyond that
is not something I'm even interested in hearing your opinion on.

> There is some significant irony in you describing the forum as a
> "toxic pit" for deleting your posts. I don't always agree with the
> moderators and I am not sure that I would have reacted the way that
> they did but these threads remind me precisely why moderation
> (including deleting posts such as yours) is needed to *prevent* a
> forum from turning into a toxic pit.

You, as well as the moderators of the toxic pit forum are confused
about what it means to have a good discussion. The discussion that is
currently happening around PyPA projects and ideas is broken because
the PyPA side of the discussion is unwilling to acknowledge how bad
they are at doing their job. Whenever any serious criticism of their
work surfaces, they deal with it by deleting the criticism, never
through addressing the problem.

You can be the most polite and humble person in the world, but as soon
as you bring up the subject of the quality of their decisions, you are
automatically excluded from discussion.

The only criticism anyone is allowed to have is the kind that doesn't
touch on any major projects. It's possible to point out typos in
documentation or to address similarly inconsequential defects at the
smaller code unit level, but it's not possible to call for a revision
of ideas behind libraries or PEPs. For instance, as soon as you
mention the comically awful idea of pyproject.toml in a bad light, you
get a ban.

I believe this comes from the place of insecurity in one's ideas, and
has nothing to do with how polite the criticism is. And that's when
instruments like "code of conduct" are called upon to delete the
inconvenient criticism. This is what creates toxic communities like
StackOverflow or similarly built social networks which endow their
moderators with way too much power over other users.  The other
extreme of anarchy, similar to 4chan, doesn't suffer from this
problem, but sometimes results in grotesque gore or other _unpleasant_
things but aren't toxic in the same way gatekeeping is.

This is how I understand and use the word "toxic". The
dicuss.python.org is just as toxic as StackOverflow -- I don't have a
metric precise enough to tell who's worse. I believe that this format
is a very unfortunate choice for public discussion where there isn't
an inherent division between owners and non-owners.  Where giving the
keys to the common good to a small group of people creates such a
division.