Jon, I'm still following the idea that this is like a group discussion in a
table with pencils or dinner plates.
In this table some of us are volunteers that join the discussion, and give
some ideas probably based more on subjective criteria than scientific data
indeed. However, this is also our value: we come, bring some ideas with the
best of the intentions, and then you (the ones in the table fully dedicated
to this piece of software) evaluate, contrast, survey, test...
With my reply I wasn't trying to invalidate your point about trying
options, gathering data, etc. On the contrary, I'm as convinced as you that
this is the way to work. However, we cannot expect from volunteers and
other occasional contributors to invest all this research before sharing an
opinion. The full-time maintainers and experts are in a position of clear
advantage here. Each one is valuable in our own roles.
The thread you started has produced and recovered some interesting ideas.
I'm looking forward to the next steps.
On Sat, Mar 28, 2015 at 5:39 PM, MZMcBride <z(a)mzmcbride.com> wrote:
This is an incredibly spurious argument. You're
manipulating the meaning
of data to fit your own purposes.
(...)
That
kind of specious reasoning? The anti-pattern is your behavior here.
Sorry, but the behavior in your reply constitutes an anti-pattern of
collaboration in a friendly space. No bug or feature or difference of
opinions justifies it. Please, let's be friendly, or at the very least
respectful.
This thread seems to be exhausted indeed. I'll look for the continuation...
hopefully in Phabricator, getting into tasks and details.