No, you’re complicit in this. @nhuurre and I clearly laid out our objections yesterday. The pull request hasn’t been reversed, and Michael has made no apologies.
Let’s save the effort here. Michael clearly has abused his power in the project to force this through. I don’t think there’s any question what conclusion he will reach given the additional power to write an API governing his pull request.
That’s how tech-lead Michael frames the discussion, which is incomplete. This discussion is about how developer-Michael refused to respect a request for simple tests made by the Stan community and how he pulled the levers of power granted him as tech lead and SGB member to avoid this.
Up until two days ago Michael had the option of resolving this with a couple simple tests (that again, I have since done and verified they passed).
That’s not the situation now. I’d like to move to have Michael removed from his position as tech lead and his position on the SGB. I want that removal to be permanent.
I believe his behavior in a leadership role on this project is counterproductive to cultivating a collaborative development environment. If Michael is so willing to work so hard to fight the collective opinion of the project on this simple issue, then how is he going to treat someone new to the community? While I respect his technical contributions, I do not believe we owe him a governmental role because of these. In my opinion he should be welcome to remain a member of the community outside of a leadership role and be proud of his contributions to the project.
Even though the technical argument underlying this specific issue is simple, I believe his willingness to unilaterally ignore the testing requests made in this thread by @Bob_Carpenter, made in the Stan meeting with consultations with @jonah and @bgoodri, and subsequently made in this thread by myself, @lauren, and @avehtari is indicative of an underlying dismissive attitude towards the Stan community. If anyone I’ve listed there thinks I’ve misrepresented them, please say so. My only regret in that process is I meant to ask @paul.buerkner his opinion as well but didn’t. (Also don’t worry @ahartikainen, I know you’re busy and I just took the non-response as an indication that you and @ariddell would agree with the outcome of the review).
I do not want to let this slide because I am someone on the project with few to no personal or professional connections to Michael. He has no power over me, and so I believe it is important for me to act against someone so willing to abuse his position.
I’d like to follow up with the rest of the @Stan_Development_Team and anyone else in the community (apologies for the weekend notification :D). Do you have any complaints about Michael’s behavior as a tech lead or member of the SGB, or is Michael’s position as a tech lead or his position on the SGB making it difficult for you to contribute to the Stan community?
This issue isn’t going to be resolved tomorrow, so please enjoy the rest of your weekend and take your time responding. I don’t want to rush on a decision like this, and if the community largely feels like I’m overreacting, I’m happy to apologize to Michael and stand aside. If you don’t want to respond publicly, you can e-mail me privately at bbbales2@gmail.com.