On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac<[email protected]> wrote: >> On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey wrote: >>> The one thing that gets over looked here is that there is a huge >>> diversity of users with very different skill levels. But very few >>> people have an understanding of the core code. (In fact the other >>> thread about type-casting suggests that it is extremely few people.) >>> So in all of this, I do not yet see 'community'. >> >> >> As an active user and long-time list member >> who has never even looked at the core code, >> I perhaps presumptuously urge a moderation >> of rhetoric. I object to the idea that users >> like myself do not form part of the "community". >> >> This list has 1400 subscribers, and the fact that >> most of us are quiet most of the time does not mean we >> are not interested or attentive to the discussions, >> including discussions of governance. >> >> It looks to me like this will be great for NumPy. >> People who would otherwise not be able to spend much >> time on NumPy will be spending a lot of time improving >> the code and adding features. In my view, this will help >> NumPy advance which will enlarge the user community, which will >> slowly but inevitably enlarge the contributor community. >> I'm pretty excited about Travis's bold efforts to find >> ways to allow him and others to spend more time on NumPy. >> I wish him the best of luck. > > I think it is important to stick to the thread topic here, which is > 'Governance'.
Do you have in mind a model of how this might work? (I suspect you have already answered a question like that in some earlier thread; sorry.) A comparable project that is doing it right? "Governance" implies enforcement power, doesn't it? Where, how, and by whom would the power be exercised? > > It's not about whether it is good or bad that Travis has re-engaged in > Numpy and is funding development in Numpy through his company. I'm > personally very glad to see Travis back on the list and engaged again, > but that's really not what the thread is about. > > The thread is about whether we need explicit Numpy governance, > especially in the situation where one new company will surely dominate > numpy development in the short term at least. > > I would say - for the benefit of Continuum Analytics and for the Numpy > community, there should be explicit governance, that takes this > relationship into account. Please elaborate; are you saying that Continuum Analytics must develop numpy as decided by some outside body? Eric > > I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at > this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned. > > Best, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
