<p dir="ltr"><br>
On 3 Oct 2013 09:00, "Nick Coghlan" <<a href="mailto:ncoghlan@gmail.com">ncoghlan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Stefan,<br>
><br>
> You blew up a minor design disagreement over the new async parsing API for XML into a huge impending disaster that would destroy the XML library APIs forever. In truth, even if we had left the original commit alone it would, at worst, have resulted in a slightly inconsistent API design.<br>
><br>
> I get that you're passionate about the relevant API since you need to replicate it in lxml. I even agree that the API we ended up with after I got involved as a mediator to separate out the legitimate complaints from the hyperbole is better than the one that was originally committed.<br>
><br>
> But when your opening gambit is to accuse people of complete incompetence (and you repeat similar accusations multiple times over the course of the disagreement), developers are entirely within their rights to stop listening to the abuse.<br>
><br>
> It's important to remember that this is a project staffed by volunteers, and some basic civility and appreciation for those efforts goes a long way in obtaining a more constructive response. In the absence of that, don't be surprised if the reaction is "There may be a valid complaint somewhere in there, but I'm not wading through the vitriol to look for it".</p>
<p dir="ltr">I'll also note that the affected developers *didn't* completely ignore the concerns you raised (which would have been an entirely reasonable response), but instead asked me to help out as a neutral mediator. That's an entirely responsible thing for them to do, and one that resulted in the underlying technical concerns being resolved *despite* the unwarranted abuse.</p>
<p dir="ltr">Regards,<br>
Nick.<br></p>
<p dir="ltr">><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Nick.</p>