I wasn't going to go there, but since it was brought up... ncohen knows that in no way is this me griping about him personally; I remember some far more vituperative problems from long ago that (thankfully) involve no-one in this thread, to my recollection.
> Sorry Nathan, but since you asked, these comments clearly violate item > (4) > > of the proposed code of conduct, and arguably items (1) and (2) as well. > > For those of us (like me) who access this on the web and hence had to look up (1)-(4), I have to say I agree that those were in violation of (1). Here is part of (4): "Be respectful and polite. Not all of us will agree all the time, but disagreement is no excuse for poor behavior and poor manners. We might all experience some frustration now and then, but we cannot allow that frustration to morph into personal attacks." Now, realistically that is not going to happen - because it's SO EASY to just hit reply. But what a (short) community standard can do is to provide guidelines for how to deal with such situations. In this particular case, it was particularly sad because, although I agreed that Nathann was out of line (and told him so privately), I also think that those who were replying to him probably should have just disengaged from the degenerating conversation. It's not in our blood to do it, as mathematicians! But sometimes necessary, to let things cool down. Honestly, I felt really bad for everyone involved in that discussion, because it was clear everyone was at least a little miffed, if not hurt. Hence the idea of suggesting somewhere (without an explicit code, perhaps) that in such situations the community "expects" (whatever that means) that people just stop talking about a given thing - or at least stop doing so on sage-devel. On sage-flame, go for it, if you really want to; private emails, we can't stop you. It won't stop a thread from going, but at least someone not directly involved (perhaps not from a "committer list") can say "Remember community standards item #43-E-5 paragraph 7b!" and that is the cue that if those involved keep going, be it on their own heads for hurt feelings. Or wasted time. > Well, then I believe that my only defense is that I was feeling very > alone trying to get item 3 observed. Indeed, a bug had been returning > wrong answers for 20 months and nothing had been done against it by > those who knew the code, despite frequent reminders. I had tried a lot > but in vain, I did not understand the code sufficiently. > Oh, I have been there. We have ALL (well, anyone who has worked on Sage for more than a few hours a year) been there. Yes it is annoying. And I have also been the one who never replied to pings because I had other priorities or my kids were sick or I was worried about something else at work or I was trying to actually get away from the internet for more than 12 hours or I didn't have a working Sage installation and would rather read a book or watch TV than try to figure out how I broke it... maybe community standard #5 can be "We know there will be unfixed bugs, and as an open source, all-volunteer project, we can only encourage others kindly to work on them", except more elegant, and with a Stuart Smalley aesthetic in it. -- 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.
