Hi, I've deliberately waited a good week before replying, but part of this just still sits wrong with me. See below. On 08.03.2022 at 12:26 Volker wrote:

I learned that some members of the list were annoyed by my posts. My aim was never to disrespect any person nor their work for lxml. I you feel disrespected I am truely sorry for that.

Appreciated! Thanks for clarifying.

But I am still sure that lxml.objectify is not the perfect solution. lxml.objectify has its advantages, for instance in simplicity and dealing with non-namespace usecases. And I think we can agree that there is no perfection in all usecase to be gained. lxml.o has its usecases and lxml.o2 will have its usecases. In any of my posts I have pointed out that lxml.o should not be replaced by lxml.o2, and that I opt for a coexistence. I also pointed out that I respected your code - I not even touched it. If something is not perfect it is limited in a way. To motivate my work I find it quite legitimate to point out the limitations of lxml.objectify. I addressed the limitiations of lxml.o2 already in my last post and I am sure there will be more surfacing before I have finalized it.

It's absolutely fine and helpful to point out limitations and potential enhancements. Still, there's the question on how you present that. In other words, it's not what you say, but how you say it.

And a few last words on the reception of the ML from my perspective. I had right from the start the feeling that my ideas were not really taken seriously.

I can only speak for myself, but why would I reply in the 1st place if I did not take an idea seriously? Re seriously: several propositions have been made (like potential enhanced/extended __dict__ behavior, using iterchildren() in the IDE or teaching the IDE to provide more helpful output) but remained unanswered from your side, IMHO.

Many negative arguments like "it was so since 2006" or "it cannot work" were brought up.

I'm not quite sure what a "negative argument" is supposed to mean. But as far as I'm concerned it's valuable information that software has a certain legacy (read: there's history + existing design decisions, with trade-offs, plus compatibility concerns to think about). And I don’t remember anyone saying that "it cannot work". What I sure did say is that I don't find the proposed changed ways convincing. Which is still the case, btw.

Even the "but I am strongly biased" club aka "I am one of the developer/maintainer" was waved.

I don't get that at all. Revealing that I'm biased is simply a disclosure that I've quite solid convictions about the way things work, and you'd better have very strong arguments to convince me otherwise. I can't wave any maintainer flag either (because I'm not ;-)). And disclosing that I was involved in lxml.objectify's "birth" is just this very same full disclosure that I'm not a neutral party.

Now I would like to come back onto the rational plane and do constructive work together.

I take it that's probably not what you meant but to bring some perspective: To me, the wording just sounds an awful lot like we (as in I, or Stefan) have not acted rational, or constructive, in the meantime, in contrast to you. And that's simply not the case. Holger Landesbank Baden-Wuerttemberg Anstalt des oeffentlichen Rechts Hauptsitze: Stuttgart, Karlsruhe, Mannheim, Mainz HRA 12704 Amtsgericht Stuttgart HRA 4356, HRA 104 440 Amtsgericht Mannheim HRA 40687 Amtsgericht Mainz Die LBBW verarbeitet gemaess Erfordernissen der DSGVO Ihre personenbezogenen Daten. Informationen finden Sie unter https://www.lbbw.de/datenschutz.