Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi Ben, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:20 AM, John Hunter wrote: > And he has proven his ability to lead when *almost everyone* was > against him. At the height of the Numeric/numarray split, and I was > deeply involved in this as the mpl author because we had a "numerix" > compatibility layer to allow users to u

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 16 February 2012 17:31, Bruce Southey wrote: > On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote: >> This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread, >> but I can't help myself. >> >> I propose the following (tongue-in-cheek) patch against the current >> numpy master branch. >> >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac >> wrote: >>> >>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for con

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac > > > wrote: > >> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. >> >> I disagree. >> Failure to reach consensus does not im

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi John, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> >> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. >> >> I disagree. >> Failure to reach consensus does n

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. > > I disagree. > Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving. > > Hey Alan, thanks for your thoughtful and nuan

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. > Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority > automatically gets veto rights. 'Striving' for consensus does imp

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. I disagree. Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving. I see parallels with a recent hiring decision process I observed. There were fundamentally different views of h

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2012-02-16, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > I think this is a good point, which is why the idea of a long term release is > appealing. That release should be stodgy and safe, while the ongoing > development can be much more radical in making changes. I sort of thought this *was* the st

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > Matthew, > > What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the > future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort > of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Matthew, What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don't go wrong. But, I personally don't agree that it is necessary to pu

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here? On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very > successful in creating new technologies.   It is pretty good at enforcing the > status-quo.  If I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

This has been a clarifying discussion for some people. I'm glad people are speaking up. I believe in the value of consensus and the value of users opinions.I want to make sure that people who use NumPy and haven't yet learned how to contribute, feel like they have a voice. I have alway

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught > wrote: > >> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathan

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >>> >>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote: >>> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smit

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:54 AM, Christopher Jordan-Squire wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted >> wrote: >>> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: >>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote: >> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> > >> >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large num

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting > >> people putting in little bits of time to a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > > > >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting > >> people putting in little bits of time to a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting >> people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated >> people putting in lots of time. > > >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote: >> On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: >> >>> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: But in the very end, when agreement can't be reached by othe

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > Why not the NA discussion?  Would we really want to have that happen again? > Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be made > (I think the last thread did an excellent job of fleshing out the ideas, but > it beca

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > But surely - surely - the best thing to do here is to formulate > something that might be acceptable, and for everyone to say what they > think the problems would be.  Do you agree? Absolutely -- but just like anything else in open source -

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted > wrote: > > On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > > > >> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > >>> But in the very end, when agreement can't > >>> be reached b

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > >> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> But in the very end, when agreement can't >>> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls. >>> (This is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM, wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> > >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > >> wrote: > >> > If non-contributing users came along on

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: >> >> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >> wrote: >> > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that >> > we set up a system to se

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: > > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that > > we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would > > have discussions in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > Personally, I > would say that making the founder of a company, which is > working to > make money from Numpy, the only decision maker on numpy - > is - scary. not to me: -- power always goes to those that actually write the code -- as far as I ca

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Inati, Souheil (NIH/NIMH) [E] > As great and trustworthy as Travis is, there is a very real > potential for conflict of interest here. He is going to be leading an > organization to raise and distribute funding and at the same time > leading a > commercial for pro

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting > people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated > people putting in lots of time. That's not what Travis, or anyone else, proposed. Travis V.__

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that > we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would > have discussions in order to veto pull requests, I don't know whether > we'd ignore it

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote: > On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote: >> It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could >> have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-) > This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread, >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> The question is more about what can possibly be done about it. To really >> shift power, my hunch is that the only practical way would be to, like >> Mark said, make sure there are very active non-Continuum-employed >> developers. But perhaps I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/16/12 8:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote: > On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote: >> It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could >> have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-) > > This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread, > b

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver wrote: > It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could > have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-) This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread, but I can't help myself. I propose the following (t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

If I can chime in as a newcomer on this list: I don't think a conflict of interest is at all likely, but I can see the point of those saying that it's worth thinking about this while everything is going well. If any tension does arise, it will be all but impossible to decide on a fair governance s

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/16/12 6:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote: > On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > >> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >>> But in the very end, when agreement can't be reached by other >>> means, the developers are the one making the calls. (This is >>> simply a consequen

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote: > On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: >> But in the very end, when agreement can't >> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls. >> (This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can >> credibl

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Joe Harrington wrote: > > > Of course, balancing all of this (and our security blanket) is the > possibility of someone splitting the code if they don't like how > Continuum runs things. Perry, you've done that yourself to this > code's > predecessor, so you know th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > But in the very end, when agreement can't > be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls. > (This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can > credibly threaten to fork the project.) Interesting point. I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

> > An example I really like is LibreOffice's "get involved" page. > > http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/ > > Producing something similar for NumPy will take some work, but I believe it's > needed. Speaking as someone who has contributed to numpy in a microscopic fashion, I agree comple

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Peter Wang wrote: > On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal >> model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I >> would say that making the founder of a com

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >> wrote: >> > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> Your points are well taken.   However, my point is that this has been >>> discussed on an open mailing list.   Things weren't *as* open as they could >>> have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection.  But, there was >>> opportun

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >>  wrote: >>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: There certainly is governance now, it's just informal.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a >>> combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how p

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: >>> >>>     Hi, >>> >>>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM,   wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >>> wrote: On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a >>> combination of how the design discussions are carried

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >> wrote: >>> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a >>> combination of how the design discussions are carried

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a >> combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull >> requests occur, and who has commit rights. > > +

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: >> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wro

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn > wrote: > > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett >> > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 15,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: >> >>     Hi, >> >>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe >    

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > > wrote: >> >>     Hi, >> >>     On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe >    

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe > wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

>On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote: >> On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> [...] >> >> My 2 cents. >> >> [...] I am both elated and concerned. Since it's obvious what there is to be elated about, this post has a "concerned" tone. But overall, I think th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/12 3:25 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > 4) It is possible for Continuum to want features that are good for > Continuum, but bad for the code-base in general. For example, > Continuum may have some product that requires a particular arcane > feature in numpy. > > Through these mechanisms, Numpy

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Wang wrote: > On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal >> model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I >> would say that making the founder of a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal > model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I > would say that making the founder of a company, which is working to > make money from Numpy, the only

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root > wrote: > >> > > >> > > >> > On Wed, Feb

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM, T J wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > > >> for the core developers. The right way to produce a >> governance structure is to make concrete proposals and >> show how these proposals are in the interest of the >> *developers* (as well

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > for the core developers. The right way to produce a > governance structure is to make concrete proposals and > show how these proposals are in the interest of the > *developers* (as well as of the users). > > At this point, it seems to me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew >> and Benjamin's for a few reasons. >> >> 1. The problem has been miscast. >>    The "economic interests" of the developers

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew > and Benjamin's for a few reasons. > > 1. The problem has been miscast. >    The "economic interests" of the developers *always* >    has had an apparent conflict with the economic >  

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac >> > wrote: >> >> Can you provide an example wh

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote: > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac >> wrote: >> >> Can you provide an example where a mo

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield wrote: > On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > [...] > > My 2 cents. > > I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of > examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it > depends on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: [...] My 2 cents. I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it depends on the people and their willingness to continue cooperating. Formal governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac > wrote: > >> Can you provide an example where a more formal > >> governance structure for NumPy would have meant > >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew and Benjamin's for a few reasons. 1. The problem has been miscast. The "economic interests" of the developers *always* has had an apparent conflict with the economic interests of the users: users want developers to work more on th

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would >> help resolve disputes. > > > How? I'm not seeing it. > Who would have behaved differently and why? Let's say t

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure > would help resolve disputes. > > > How? I'm not seeing it. > Who would have behaved differently and why? > > Alan > > I am

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root wrote: > > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: >> Can you provide an example where a more formal >> governance structure for NumPy would have meant >> more or better code development? (Please do not >> suggest the NA discussi

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would > help resolve disputes. How? I'm not seeing it. Who would have behaved differently and why? Alan ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing li

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, Thanks for these interesting and specific questions. On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Firing wrote: > On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac  wrote: >>> On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey wrote: The one thing that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: > I think it is only fair that the group occasionally pings this mailing-list > for important progress reports. No offense intended, but that sounds like an unfunded mandate. More useful would be an offer to liaison between the two. Cheers, Alan _

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2/15/2012 1:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at > > this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned. > > To justify that concern, can you point to an > analogous

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac 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 >>>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

On 2/15/2012 1:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at > this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned. To justify that concern, can you point to an analogous case, where things went awry by not formalizing the governance str

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hello, From: Matthew Brett [matthew.br...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:50 PM To: Discussion of Numerical Python Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac wrote: > On 2

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac 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 fac

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

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 extr

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Le 15/02/2012 04:07, Bruce Southey a écrit : > 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 ext

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the ot

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be prominent on the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On 2/14/12 7:17 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > * Fund Open Source Projects in Science (currently NumPy, SciPy, > IPython, and Matplotlib are first-tier with a whole host of second-tier > projects that could received funding) > * through grants So, for example, would the Foundat

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

>> >> Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been >> discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could >> have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity >> for people to provide input. > > I am on the numpy, scip

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

> > I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of > these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of > course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be > prominent on the numpy/scipy pages(maybe others?). It should a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >>> >>> When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list >>> for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the >>> other one.      I apologize if anyone felt left out.   That is not my >>

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> >> There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would >> like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more >> information about

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

>> >> When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list >> for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the >> other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my >> intention. > > My point is that there are two ways go to about

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would > like to be part of those discussions.   Let me know if you would like more > information about that.    John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry > Greenfield,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

>> >> There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would >> like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more >> information about that.John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry >> Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foun

[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1

Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: > >> Hi Travis, >> >> It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to >> work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen. >> >> I am slightly confused about ro