Do you disagree with the author’s premise that multi-decade reproducibility is of value to the scientific community? On what basis would you make that disagreem

Do you disagree with the author’s premise that multi-decade reproducibility is of value to the scientific community? On what basis would you make that disagreement? And if you concede that the author’s proposed timescales have merit, how does 4 years of stability (interrupted by the requirement to make minor changes) meet the requirement? To me, the premise of longer-than-four-year reproducibility timelines seems obvious. And I hope it at least seems plausible to others. Hinsen’s point is that the SciPy community actively markets itself to the scientific community as a way of carrying out computationally aided research, but hasn’t even articulated what its disposition toward reproducibility is. I think transparency in this regard is probably the right thing. And I also find compelling Hinsen’s supposition that we should bias a little more in favor of reproducibility. EDIT: and I should note that, given the SciPy community has chosen to make its home on top of Python, and is the layer of abstraction that many researchers are now interacting with, the Python 2 -> 3 transition is very much a SciPy issue... specifically so for the reasons articulated in this article.