On 11/18/14 11:07 AM, William Stein wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 11:05 AM, Anne Schilling <a...@math.ucdavis.edu> > wrote: >> On 11/18/14 10:36 AM, William Stein wrote: >>> On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:01 AM, Anne Schilling <a...@math.ucdavis.edu> >>> wrote: >>>> On 11/18/14 7:55 AM, Harald Schilly wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, November 17, 2014 3:26:18 PM UTC+1, kcrisman wrote: >>>>> >>>>> What if instead of a "code of conduct" there was a "community >>>>> expectations" SHORT document that just say what we expect? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm a little bit late to this thread, but I've read all the mails. This >>>>> "expectations" document sounds interesting to me, whereas I'm a bit >>>>> hesitant to this "code of conduct" thing. In my eyes, it is >>>>> stating a lot of obvious things, and doesn't solve immediate problems. I >>>>> agree that it could be abused in some way, just because it exists and >>>>> hence it is a leverage point. e.g. phrases like "poor >>>>> behavior" are a bit hollow for me. (*) >>>> >>>> Saying that discussions that get out of hand can be relegated to >>>> sage-flame is, I think, important. >>>> For example, I did not know that we could do that until very recently. >>>> Stating explicitly how this can >>>> be done might be good. >>>> >>>>> We should not forget, that most of us here (as mathematicians & >>>>> researchers in general) are trained to be (a) very picky and (b) >>>>> long-term persistent. Those ingredients do not help if a discussion >>>>> derails into lengthy substitution-arguments to just make a point in a >>>>> time-consuming thread. What would actually help in such situations is to >>>>> step back and look at the bigger picture. Maybe there >>>>> should be an intervention team of "senior" community people to sort this >>>>> out: e.g. just posting "DRAMA MODE" as a signal for everyone to stop it? >>>>> But who are those and how do they gain authority? >>>> >>>> One problem with this is that the intervention team might not be reading >>>> all threads. >>>> So having a way to say where there is a problem might still be useful. >>>> I agree deciding who the intervention team is is an important question. >>>> Probably William >>>> would be a good choice. >>> >>> Here is I think a concrete, apolitical proposal. >>> >>> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one >>> possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on >>> ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, >>> which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much >>> ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not >>> contribute their copyright). By this definition: >>> >>> >>> https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a >>> >>> the top 12 all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: >>> >>> - William Stein >>> - Mike Hansen >>> - Volker Braun >>> - Jereon Demeyer >>> - Nathann Cohen >>> - Robert Bradshaw >>> - Robert Miller >>> - Simon King >>> - John Palmieri >>> - Jason Grout >>> - Nicholas Thiery >>> - David Kirkby >>> >>> >>> We could: >>> >>> 1. Create a private mailing list called sage-abuse with these people >>> as members. >>> >>> 2. Make a clear statement on the sagemath.org website, etc., that if >>> people think a thread should be on sage-flame, send a message to the >>> sage-abuse list. >>> >>> 3. The sage-abuse list members will have a quick discussion and if >>> what to do isn't clear, they will vote (which means a quick on-list >>> vote that must be completed within one day). If a majority votes to >>> move the discussion should move to sage-flame, they ensure it moves. >>> >>> For now, the sage-abuse group would have exactly one duty, which is to >>> ensure that discussions get moved to sage-flame when requested. >>> That's it. We would give this a try for 6 months, and only then >>> revisit whether the group should expand its duties or be dissolved. >> >> This looks in principle like a good idea. However, how did you obtain this >> data? Is this code contributed to Sage? On the link that you post above, >> there are >> definitely contributors missing that have contributed lots of code. So how >> precisely is this data obtained? > > I just mindlessly clicked a few times on links on github. I believe > they are computing the total number of lines of code contributed to > the Sage git repo. So this is mostly code included in the core Sage > library, via the trac review process.
Not everybody who contributes through trac seems to have an account on github. So there are lots of contributors missing! Best, Anne -- 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.
