[Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Sat Oct 29 15:32:04 CDT 2011


Hi,

On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris
>> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those
>> > who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed code, fixed
>> > bugs, and have generally been active in numpy development. In any group
>> > participation is important, people who just walk in the door and demand
>> > things be done their way aren't going to get a lot of respect. I'll happily
>> > listen to politely expressed feedback, especially if the feedback comes from
>> > someone who shows up to work, but that hasn't been my impression of the
>> > disagreements in this case. Heck, Nathaniel wasn't even tracking the Numpy
>> > pull requests or Mark's repository. That doesn't spell "participant" in my
>> > dictionary.
>> >
>> > Chuck
>> >
>>
>> This is a very good point, but I would highly caution against alienating
>> anybody here.  Frankly, I am surprised how much my opinion has been taken
>> here given the very little numpy code I have submitted (I think maybe two or
>> three patches).  The Numpy community is far more than just those who use the
>> core library. There is pandas, bottleneck, mpl, the scikits, and much more.
>>  Numpy would be nearly useless without them, and certainly vice versa.
>>
>
> I was quite impressed by your comments on Mark's work, I thought they were
> excellent. It doesn't really take much to make an impact in a small
> community overburdened by work.
>
>>
>> We are all indebted to each other for our works. We must never lose that
>> perspective.
>>
>> We all seem to have a different set of assumptions of how development
>> should work.  Each project follows its own workflow.  Numpy should be free
>> to adopt their own procedures, and we are free to discuss them.
>>
>> I do agree with chuck that he shouldn't have to make a written invitation
>> to each and every person to review each pull.  However, maybe some work can
>> be done to bring the pull request and issues discussion down to the mailing
>> list. I would like to do something similar with mpl.
>>
>> As for voting rights, let's make that a separate discussion.
>>
>
> With such a small community, I'd rather avoid the whole voting thing if
> possible.

But, if there is one thing worse than voting, it is implicit voting.
Implicit voting is where you ignore people who you don't think should
have a voice.  Unless I'm mistaken, that's what you are suggesting
should be the norm.

Best,

Matthew


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list