On 2015-09-23 13:36:35, Fernando Perez <fperez....@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> I see a severe reaction to perceived 'suspicion and innuendo', but I >> see no 'suspicion and innuendo'. Unless you mean that any suggestion >> of potential conflict of interest is suspicion and innuendo. >> > > No, as I said, COIs are absolutely a fact of life, and *should* be talked > about, openly and directly. I was referring generically about the tone of > this thread, that Ryan described as "bizarre", others as "surpised", > "disheartened", etc.
What I thought Matthew was saying is that you writing "I hope the discussion can move past the suspicion and innuendo about Continuum and Travis" gives validity to the view that those things are real whereas, in my view, they were constructed in responses by others who didn't accurately summarize the intent of what was being said (and I'm not laying blame to anyone, I could certainly have worded myself more clearly). But, yes, it was disheartening—especially because we all know one another and have hacked together late into the night at SciPy conferences. My experience has always been that we are reasonable people who listen; but perhaps we forget that about one another from time to time. It is important to me that we work towards making this mailing list a safe place for discussion again. Part of that may be to do some maintenance on bridges of trust that seem to have eroded a bit over the years. Perhaps some kind of group bonding activity, such as working on a shared project, would help? ;) > b) a suggestion that we discuss it further personally, taking advantage of > the fact that we happen to be physically close. Sure, I'm happy to discuss the personal side of this offline. Stéfan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
