[Numpy-discussion] consensus (was: NA masks in the next numpy release?)
Sat Oct 29 15:32:04 CDT 2011
On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris
>> <email@example.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
>> 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
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.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion