[Numpy-discussion] Removing masked arrays for 1.7? (Was 1.7 blockers)
Tue Apr 17 14:00:54 CDT 2012
On 04/17/2012 08:40 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 7:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 5:59 AM, Matthew Brett<email@example.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Apr 16, 2012 at 8:40 PM, Travis Oliphant<firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> Mark and I will have conversations about NumPy while he is in Austin. There are many other active stake-holders whose opinions and views are essential for major changes. Mark and I are working on other things besides just NumPy and all NumPy changes will be discussed on list and require consensus or super-majority for NumPy itself to change. I'm not sure if that helps. Is there more we can do?
>>> As you might have heard me say before, my concern is that it has not
>>> been easy to have good discussions on this list. I think the problem
>>> has been that is has not been clear what the culture was, and how
>>> decisions got made, and that had led to some uncomfortable and
>>> unhelpful discussions. My plea would be for you as BDF$N to strongly
>>> encourage on-list discussions and discourage off-list discussions as
>>> far as possible, and to help us make the difficult public effort to
>>> bash out the arguments to clarity and consensus. I know that's a big
>> Hi Matthew,
>> As you know, I agree with everything you just said :-). So in interest
>> of transparency, I should add: I have been in touch with Travis some
>> off-list, and the main topic has been how to proceed in a way that
>> let's us achieve public consensus.
...when possible without paralysis.
> I'm glad to hear that discussion is happening, but please do have it
> on list. If it's off list it easy for people to feel they are being
> bypassed, and that the public discussion is not important. So, yes,
> you might get a better outcome for this specific case, but a worse
> outcome in the long term, because the list will start to feel that
> it's for signing off or voting rather than discussion, and that - I
> feel sure - would lead to worse decisions.
I think you are over-stating the case a bit. Taking what you say
literally, one might conclude that numpy people should never meet and
chat, or phone each other up and chat. But such small conversations are
an important extension and facilitator of individual thinking. Major
decisions do need to get hashed out publicly, but mailing list
discussions are only one part of the thinking and decision process.
> The other issue is that there's a reason you are having the discussion
> off-list - which is that it was getting difficult on-list. But -
> again - a personal view - that really has to be addressed directly by
> setting out the rules of engagement and modeling the kind of
> discussion we want to have.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion