>>>>> Dominick Samperi <djsamp...@gmail.com>
>>>>> on Thu, 2 Dec 2010 03:27:58 -0500 writes:
> On Thu, Dec 2, 2010 at 2:51 AM, Gavin Simpson
<gavin.simp...@ucl.ac.uk>wrote:
>> On Wed, 2010-12-01 at 20:24 -0500, Dominick Samperi wrote:
>> <snip />
>> > > Just to be clear I have never used the package and am not truly
>> > > commenting on this particular case but only the general ideas in this
>> > > thread. Also I was not suggesting that the comments in the code were
>> > > purposefully misleading, only that they might be misleading since
they
>> > > could be interpreted in terms of contribution even though they are
>> > > stated in terms of lines of code. The author of the phrase may very
>> > > well have felt that the current team had done a lot of work to add
>> > > design ideas and develop and promote the software but perhaps the
>> > > unfortunate way in how it was expressed in that phrase that came out
>> > > as a seeming comment on the original creator's contribution rather
>> > > than the intended comment on their own, presumably also significant,
>> > > contribution.
>> > >
>> >
>> > There is no reason given why this
>> > should happen now, at this moment, and no explanation why
>> > the same standard should not be applied to other package authors,
>> > including other authors of Rcpp.
>>
>> Dominick,
>>
>> You feel you are the aggrieved party so of course you will find
>> conspiracy in the timing. An equally plausible explanation is that the
>> current set of developers on Rcpp intended to alter the "contributions",
>> to better reflect the current state of the package, some time ago but it
>> slipped through the cracks.
>>
> While we are in the housecleaning mood, perhaps the "contributions"
> can be reflected even better by removing all references to my name
> as I have suggested.
>>
>> You are predisposed to see the bad where non may exist. But also, you
>> should be discussing this in private with the package developers.
>>
>> There is nothing in this thread of relevance to R-devel (other than to
>> publicly refute your claims so as to balance the record should someone
>> come across this in the archives) as this has nothing to do with
>> developing R. There is no-one here who can speak for the "R Community",
>> because such a thing is not a concrete entity - you will just get the
>> opinions of individuals. It is to the credit of this list (R-Devel) that
>> this has not descended into a vitriolic stream of claim and counter
>> claim.
>>
>> As for your claims about R Core, Doug has succinctly and clearly
>> addressed your claims in that regard, regardless what you may personally
>> believe. Rcpp is *not* an official product of the R Foundation, and
>> neither is it part of the R distribution.
>>
>> Can we please take this elsewhere?
>>
>> Gavin.
Yes, please.
I think Dominick has received several suggestions and has got a few
views from a tiny but not insignificant fraction of "the R
community".
--> Thanks to all contributors
...
and that should be *it*.
Martin Maechler, ETH Zurich
(Administrator of the R-devel mailing list)
______________________________________________
R-devel@r-project.org mailing list
https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/r-devel
