> > > One last time, it was *not* a personal reference to you: the only reason I > mentioned your names was because of the Berkeley clarification regarding > BIDS that I asked of Travis, that's all. If that comment hadn't been made, > I would not have made any mention whatsoever of anyone in particular. I > apologize for not foreseeing that this would have made you feel singled > out, in retrospect, I should have. > > In my mind, it was the opposite, as I felt that you had every right to > express whatever opinions you have speaking for yourselves, independent of > your affiliations, and I was simply asking Travis to separate individuals > from institutions. But I should have realized that calling anyone out by > name in a context like this is a bad idea regardless. > > This was my fault for not being more careful in my words. I felt multiple things when I wrote my emails that led to incorrectly chosen words --- but mostly I was feeling unappreciated, attacked, and accused. I'm sure now that was not intended --- but there have been mis-understandings. I expect they will happen again. I know if we listen to each other and trust that while we may see the world differently and have different framings of solutions --- we can work to coordinate on an important technical activity together.
In retrospect, my initial email requesting inclusion on the seed council could have been worded better (as there were multiple things conflated together). I am responding to the actual text of the governance document in the other thread so as to clarify what my proposal actually is in the context of that document. -Travis
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
