Python documentation in DocBook

Martin v. Loewis martin at v.loewis.de
Fri Nov 15 08:16:41 EST 2002


anton at vredegoor.doge.nl (Anton Vredegoor) writes:

> That sounds reasonable but the problem is that as the receiver of a
> donation you are not in a good bargaining position. 

That sounds convincing, but it is still wrong: For code contributions,
we do a lot of bargaining, and, in all cases, for the better of the
Python future. It may be that individual contributors disagree, but at
large, only very strict procedures allow to maintain a project of that
size at all. 

If we wouldn't require people to follow these procedures, it would
increase the work needed to process an individual contribution, and we
could accept *fewer* contributions than we can accept now. If you look
at the SF pages, you see that some patches date back up to a year; bug
reports data back 2 years (with an ever-growing backlog).

Since I'm convinced that contributors appreciate negative feedback
(with an option of improving their submission) over getting no
feedback at all, I feel that anything that helps to process all
submissions is in the interest of the contributors at large.

> Requiring identification instead of just asking for it will cause a
> lot of information to be filtered out even before its gets a chance
> to be evaluated.

That is an unproven theory. It will cause information to be filtered
out, yes. Some people refuse to use SF at all; some of those post to
python-list instead. If the latter group is a remarkable fraction of
the former, I think we lose only a little information.

Regards,
Martin



More information about the Python-list mailing list