Improving Random

Alexey Kuleshevich alexey at
Wed Jun 3 08:56:05 UTC 2020

> Can I also ask why this happened?

I don't know why, maybe Carter can shed some light for us why he abused his power and dropped another maintainer of core library without any explanation.
I suspect that he got upset about Dominic saying publicly not to use `random` because it is of poor quality [1], which I can only deduce from Carter's response in [2]
I am not sure if it happened immediately, but the wiki was updated a few months later [3]

[1] -

[2] -
[3] -

> This looks quite similar to what we've seen in the vector package a while ago;

This does look very similar indeed. I participated on the issue #265 and I am very surprised that it was deleted! It was an important ticket that discussed lack of maintainship and poor release process currently practiced in `vector` package.

I do not want to derail this conversation away from `random`, but this seems like a recurring pattern. I believe many will agree with me that this is not an acceptable way of maintaining core packages. I can't think of a better time for CLC to get involved and do something about the problem at hand.


‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
On Wednesday, June 3, 2020 10:03 AM, Fumiaki Kinoshita <fumiexcel at> wrote:

>> Dominic, whom you have kicked out from the list of maintainers
> Can I also ask why this happened?
> IMO (I believe a lot of people would agree), software development, especially of core libraries should be transparent and healthy, but as far as I can see none of this work is getting into master, and still held back because of reasons Carter hasn't clarified.
> This looks quite similar to what we've seen in the vector package a while ago; I noticed that patches I submitted weren't getting into the release for several years, so I posted an issue asking to release a new version including recent fixes. As people point out the problem in the release process, the issue has been locked, and eventually deleted for some reason (
> Incidents like these significantly discourage active/potential contributors, and can affect the entire ecosystem. If anything like this happens again, we may want to introduce some kind of audits to lubricate and  sanitise the workflow. The current situation looks rather disappointing to me.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <>

More information about the Libraries mailing list