Paul Moore email@example.com writes:
On 28 July 2015 at 13:35, Ben Finney firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
People can, do, and probably must make many decisions through non-rational processes. I don't propose to change that.
Choices can be made that, when challenged, lack compelling rational justification. I do propose that such a challenge should be taken as a healthy desire to improve Python, not a personal attack.
While that is fine, you appear unwilling to accept the possibility that people may not have the time/energy to develop a detailed rational justification for a change that they have made, and demanding that they do so when they are offering the time they do give on a volunteer basis, is what I claim is unacceptable.
I've said many times now that's not what I'm advocating.
I've made a clear distinction between the need to be able to justify a change, versus arbitrary demands to do so by arbitrary members.
The latter is what you're arguing against, and of course I agree. I've never advocated that.
The issue is not one of your motives in asking for explanations - it's the implication that you are entitled to require others to provide those explanations, to whatever level of detail you require.
Hopefully this repetition is enough: I do not claim any such entitlement.
I hope that clarifies my position.
Likewise. Thanks for engaging.
-- \ “… correct code is great, code that crashes could use | `\ improvement, but incorrect code that doesn’t crash is a | _o__) horrible nightmare.” —Chris Smith, 2008-08-22 | Ben Finney