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

Benjamin Root ben.root@ou....
Sat Oct 29 18:24:11 CDT 2011


On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:59 PM, Charles R Harris
> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 2:48 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 11:36 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> > <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi,
>>> >>
>>> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> >> <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> > Hi,
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:44 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> >> > <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 9:04 PM, Matthew Brett
>>> >> >> <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>>> >> >> wrote:
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> Hi,
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 3:26 AM, Ralf Gommers
>>> >> >>> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> >
>>> >> >>> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Matthew Brett
>>> >> >>> > <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> Hi,
>>> >> >>> >>
>>> >> >>> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Ralf Gommers
>>> >> >>> >> <ralf.gommers@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 12:37 AM, Matthew Brett
>>> >> >>> >> > <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>> >> > wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> Hi,
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> On Fri, Oct 28, 2011 at 3:14 PM, Charles R Harris
>>> >> >>> >> >> <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>> >> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >>
>>> >> >>> >> >> No, that's not what Nathaniel and I are saying at all.
>>> >> >>> >> >> Nathaniel
>>> >> >>> >> >> was
>>> >> >>> >> >> pointing to links for projects that care that everyone
agrees
>>> >> >>> >> >> before
>>> >> >>> >> >> they go ahead.
>>> >> >>> >> >
>>> >> >>> >> > It looked to me like there was a serious intent to come to
an
>>> >> >>> >> > agreement,
>>> >> >>> >> > or
>>> >> >>> >> > at least closer together. The discussion in the summer was
>>> >> >>> >> > going
>>> >> >>> >> > around
>>> >> >>> >> > in
>>> >> >>> >> > circles though, and was too abstract and complex to follow.
>>> You are repeating the loaded phrase 'ripping the current code out' and
> thus making the discussion less sensible and more hostile.
>
>>  It isn't like it is (known
>> to be) buggy, nor has anyone made the case that it isn't a basis on which
>> build other options. It also smacks of gratuitous violence committed by
>> someone yet to make a positive contribution to the project.
>
> This is cheap, rude, and silly.  All I can see from Nathaniel is a
> reasonable, fair attempt to discuss the code.  He proposed backing off
> the code in good faith.   You are emphatically, and, in my view
> childishly, ignoring the substantial points he is making, and
> asserting over and over that he deserves no hearing because he has not
> contributed code.   This is a terribly destructive way to work.  If I
> was a new developer reading this, I would conclude, that I had better
> be damn careful which side I'm on, before I express my opinion,
> otherwise I'm going to be made to feel like I don't exist by the other
> people on the project.  That is miserable, it is silly, and it's the
> wrong way to do business.
>
> Best,
>
> Matthew
>

/me blows whistle. Personal foul against defense! Personal foul against
offense! Penalties offset! Repeat first down.

10 minute rule, please.

Ben Root

P.S. - as a bit of evidence against the idea that chuck doesnt consider
opinions from non-contributors, I haven't felt ignored during this whole
discussion, yet I don't think that anyone had an expectation of me to
produce code.  However, to have an expectation to produce code for
counter-proposals might be a bit unfair because the ones offering counter
proposal may not have the resources available, like we did with mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20111029/6e35a0b6/attachment-0001.html 


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list