[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Wed Feb 15 13:33:58 CST 2012
On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac<email@example.com> 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 fact the other
>>> thread about type-casting suggests that it is extremely few people.)
>>> So in all of this, I do not yet see 'community'.
>> As an active user and long-time list member
>> who has never even looked at the core code,
>> I perhaps presumptuously urge a moderation
>> of rhetoric. I object to the idea that users
>> like myself do not form part of the "community".
>> This list has 1400 subscribers, and the fact that
>> most of us are quiet most of the time does not mean we
>> are not interested or attentive to the discussions,
>> including discussions of governance.
>> It looks to me like this will be great for NumPy.
>> People who would otherwise not be able to spend much
>> time on NumPy will be spending a lot of time improving
>> the code and adding features. In my view, this will help
>> NumPy advance which will enlarge the user community, which will
>> slowly but inevitably enlarge the contributor community.
>> I'm pretty excited about Travis's bold efforts to find
>> ways to allow him and others to spend more time on NumPy.
>> I wish him the best of luck.
> I think it is important to stick to the thread topic here, which is
Do you have in mind a model of how this might work? (I suspect you have
already answered a question like that in some earlier thread; sorry.) A
comparable project that is doing it right?
"Governance" implies enforcement power, doesn't it? Where, how, and by
whom would the power be exercised?
> It's not about whether it is good or bad that Travis has re-engaged in
> Numpy and is funding development in Numpy through his company. I'm
> personally very glad to see Travis back on the list and engaged again,
> but that's really not what the thread is about.
> The thread is about whether we need explicit Numpy governance,
> especially in the situation where one new company will surely dominate
> numpy development in the short term at least.
> I would say - for the benefit of Continuum Analytics and for the Numpy
> community, there should be explicit governance, that takes this
> relationship into account.
Please elaborate; are you saying that Continuum Analytics must develop
numpy as decided by some outside body?
> I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at
> this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned.
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion