On Mon, 15 Feb 2021 at 02:23, Nathan Myers via Lib-Ext
<lib-ext_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> On 2/13/21 2:23 PM, Ville Voutilainen via Lib-Ext wrote:
> > You can all claim to me that naming is important. I very
> > much dispute that claim.
> Oddly, it is invariably same person who insists both that
> (a) names are not important, and we must immediately stop
> discussing them, and *also* (b) their own favorite is the
> only name that could possibly be right. (Such favorite is
> always among the first mentioned.)
>
> In a choice between a person's words and actions, it is
> easy to guess which reflects what they believe.

There's a problem or fifty with those incorrect claims of yours:
I'm not claiming that the name I'm suggesting is the only name that
could possibly
be right. I'm saying it's plausibly a name that we can live with.

I also don't insist that we must stop discussing names. I don't have
the power to so insist,
nor do I have any illusions or hallucinations of such power. What I
continue to say, though,
is that our naming discussions in general, and in this instance in
particular, are chaotic
and inefficient, and of poor quality in general both as discussions
and from the point of
view of their results. They are also discouraging to proposal authors
that aren't used to the chaos
we happily accept because we are boiled frogs, and it's highly
implausible that all this
overhead is worth it, considering that we do not have a track record
that would show that
our endless naming discussions produce superb results.

In case you think you are going to magically make me agree with you by
continuing to provide
these less-than-helpful analyses of me, instead of focusing on the
problem at hand, think
again. Scaring me away from technical discussions takes more than you have.