On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 9:11 PM Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-8 William Stein wrote:
>
> the main act of censure that the sage-abuse committee will be
> taking going forward will be to delete comments (on github and mailing
> lists) that violate the cod
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-8 William Stein wrote:
the main act of censure that the sage-abuse committee will be
taking going forward will be to delete comments (on github and mailing
lists) that violate the code of conduct.
William, Volker, I've already shared privately i
On Sunday, January 14, 2024 at 6:10:53 AM UTC-8 Volker Braun wrote:
On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
I think we need to know at least some rough indication on the intended
timeline of this proposed process.
My offer would be that I get it started (i.e. s
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 11:37:59 AM UTC-8 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
I think we should start with electing a new sage-abuse committee that is
willing to publicly affirm and enforce the Code of Conduct. I would suggest
that nominations (including self-nominations) be sent to this list by Ja
On Saturday, January 13, 2024 at 1:19:52 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
I think we need to know at least some rough indication on the intended
timeline of this proposed process.
My offer would be that I get it started (i.e. serve as the editor on the
first batch of disputed tickets). Others w
Hi Volker, William,
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 6:50:10 AM UTC-8 William Stein wrote:
1. There are over 20 pull requests labeled as "disputed" [1]. To
resolve these pull requests, we will be appointing an editor with no
direct involvement in the pull request to make a judgement call on
t
One way or another, no faithful packaging of Sage the distro exists, besides
Sage the distro itself.
The reason is that it's too big, too verbose with it's 400 packages, most of
which are just unpatched PyPI packages, pinned to relatively random versions,
providing Python, Jupyter and Sphinx, an
On Wednesday 10 January 2024 at 16:59:22 UTC-5 Dima Pasechnik wrote:
When it was discussed whether we wanted to use it, the main objection was
that it needs root (once, explicitly, to set up, then implicitly), thus
unsafe.
Conda was mentioned as a better option. But Conda is much bigger.
Con
Here's a friendly overview on 9 of the "disputed" PRs, to help potential
volunteer editors find PRs that match their interests -- in case the
community decides that this model of appointing editors is the way to go.
None of them has anything to do with "development philosophy", or with
macOS; t
We do not have much time to devote to Sage development.
And this is a great time to thank Volker for continuing to serve as release
manager for the vast majority of Sage tickets which are not about the
design philosophy, despite his (and William's) lack of time. Thank you!
--
You received
Hi,
Appointing an editor (or editors) seems not a realistic solution, as it
would be harder than resolving a disputed PR.
Forcing the code of conduct is not realistic either, as we have no means to
force it.
I advocate for adopting a policy such as David Roe suggested for disputed
PRs, as we
On 10 January 2024 20:29:28 GMT, Edgar Costa wrote:
>>
>> I suspect it's due to the latter used to Sage the distro as a "missing
>> macOS
>> package manager".
>> So they are happy adding more and more spkgs to Sage.
>> And Linux users rightly see adding to Sage spkgs, which
>> package software
On Wednesday, January 10, 2024 at 2:37:59 PM UTC-5 Matthias Koeppe wrote:
[...] clarify the Code of Conduct and spell out its procedures and the
range of sanctions
In case anyone missed this point, it is literally spelled out in William's
original message:
For now, the main act of censure t
>
> I suspect it's due to the latter used to Sage the distro as a "missing
> macOS
> package manager".
> So they are happy adding more and more spkgs to Sage.
> And Linux users rightly see adding to Sage spkgs, which
> package software available on their systems in a regular way,
> as a bloat, whic
We have a problem of one developer, who decided, based on his, certainly,
prolific contributions, that he can appoint himself a CTO of the project, and
tell everyone who disagrees with him that it's a violation of CoC.
On 10 January 2024 19:37:58 GMT, Matthias Koeppe
wrote:
>As I have explain
As I have explained to the current, semi-anonymous sage-abuse committee in
private communication:
The framing of the dysfunction in the affected PRs
https://github.com/sagemath/sage/pulls?q=is%3Aopen+is%3Apr+label%3Adisputed as
mere "disputes" or "controversies" is misguided and harmful.
We do
16 matches
Mail list logo
