On 29 July 2015 at 02:17, Ben Finney email@example.com wrote:
Paul Moore firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
On 28 July 2015 at 13:35, Ben Finney email@example.com 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.
I'm arguing against the former. Being able to survive a crowd sourced grilling on any arbitrary change would be quite the chilling effect, and its a level of backpressure that the committers who engaged in this discussion have rejected. Some have rejected contributing at all as a result of the discussion. Others, like me, are telling you that you're wrong, that we don't accept that we can be called up for any odd commit and asked to justify it to anyone.
There is a social contract around our commits - and it does permit enquiry and discussion, but not with the degree of heat or antagonism that was present in this thread.
Not by uninformed folk: If you're going to second guess the onus is on you to educate yourself about the issue first. This particular one, for instance, requires going back through the history of mock right to its founding in 2007, and walking forward through the merge into the stdlib in Python 3,3 (because its popular) and finally the realisation that large chunks of peoples code were silently not testing what was desired and the fixing of that. Discussing the thing we discussed in that context is a very different discussion to what we had, where every second message was someone misunderstanding what the issue is and chiming in to say that this is surprising and unPythonic and against the Zen and oh my.
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.
If you don't claim such entitlement, who does? Whose entitlement are you arguing for? If its Guido's, I think we can stop arguing - sure, he is entitled to ask for a lot, but I don't want to argue about what entitlements someone else has: they can argue on their own.
-- Robert Collins firstname.lastname@example.org Distinguished Technologist HP Converged Cloud