[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Fri Feb 17 00:22:16 CST 2012
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Benjamin Root <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac <email@example.com>
>>> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>>> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
>>> I disagree.
>>> Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving.
>> Hey Alan, thanks for your thoughtful and nuanced views. I agree with
>> everything you've said, but have a few additional points.
>> At the risk of wading into a thread that has grown far too long, and
>> echoing Eric's comments that the idea of governance is murky at best
>> when there is no provision for enforceability, I have a few comments.
>> Full disclosure: Travis has asked me and I have agreed to to serve on
>> a board for "numfocus", the not-for-profit arm of his efforts to
>> promote numpy and related tools. Although I have no special numpy
>> developer chops, as the original author of matplotlib, which is one of
>> the leading "numpy clients", he asked me to join his organization as a
>> "community representative". I support his efforts, and so agreed to
>> join the numfocus board.
>> My first and most important point is that the subtext of many postings
>> about the fear of undue and inappropriate influence of Continuum under
>> Travis' leadership is far overblown. Travis created numpy -- it is
>> his baby. Undeniably, he created it by standing on the shoulders of
>> giants: Jim Hugunin, Paul Dubois, Perry Greenfield and his team, and
>> many others. But the idea that we need to guard against the
>> possibility that his corporate interests will compromise his interests
>> in "what is best for numpy" is academic at best.
>> As someone who has created a significant project in the realm of
>> "scientific computing in Python", I can tell you that it is something
>> I take quite a bit of pride in and it is very important to me that the
>> project thrives as it was intended to: as a free, open-source,
>> best-practice way of doing science. I know Travis well enough to know
>> he feels the same way -- numpy doing well is *at least* important to
>> him his company doing well. All of his recent actions to start a
>> company and foundation which focuses resources on numpy and related
>> tools reinforce that view. If he had a different temperament, he
>> wouldn't have devoted five to ten years of is life to Numeric, scipy
>> and numpy. He is a BDFL for a reason: he has earned our trust.
>> And he has proven his ability to lead when *almost everyone* was
>> against him. At the height of the Numeric/numarray split, and I was
>> deeply involved in this as the mpl author because we had a "numerix"
>> compatibility layer to allow users to use one or the other, Travis
>> proposed writing numpy to solve both camp's problems. I really can't
>> remember a single individual who supported him. What I remember is
>> the cacophony of voices who though this was a bad idea, because of the
>> "third fork" problem. But Travis forged ahead, on his own, wrote
>> numpy, and re-united the Numeric and numarray camps. And
>> all-the-while he maintained his friendship with the numarray
>> developers (Perry Greenfield who led the numarray development effort
>> has also been invited by Travis to the numfocus board, as has Fernando
>> Perez and Jarrod Millman). Although MPL at the time agreed to support
>> a third version in its numerix compatibility layer for numpy, I can
>> thankfully say we have since dropped support for the compatibility
>> layer entirely as we all use numpy now. This to me is the distilled
>> essence of leadership, against the voices of the masses, and it bears
>> I have two more points I want to make: one is on democracy, and one is
>> on corporate control. On corporate control: there have been a number
>> of posts in this thread about the worries and dangers that Continuum
>> poses as the corporate sponser of numpy development, about how this
>> may cause numpy to shift from a model of a few loosely connected,
>> decentralized cadre of volunteers to a centrally controlled steering
>> committee of programmers who are controlled by corporate headquarters
>> and who make all their decisions around the water cooler unobserved by
>> the community of users.
>> I want to make a connection to something that happened in the history
>> of matplotlib development, something that is not strictly analogous
>> but I think close enough to be informative. Sometime around 2005,
>> Perry Greenfield, who heads the development team of the Space
>> Telescope Science Institute (STScI) that is charged with processing
>> the Hubble image pipeline, emailed me that he was considering using
>> matplotlib as their primary image visualization tool. I can't tell
>> you how excited I was at the time. The idea of having institutional
>> sponsorship from someone as prestigious and resourceful as STScI was
>> hugely motivating. I worked feverishly for months to add stuff they
>> needed: better rendering, better image support, mathtext and lots
>> more. But more importantly, Perry was offering to bring institutional
>> support to my project: well qualified full-time employees who
>> dedicated a significant part of their time to matplotlib
>> development. He had done this before with numarray development, and
>> the contributions of his team are enormous. Many mpl features owe
>> their support to institutional sopnsership: Perry's group deserves the
>> biggest props, but Ted Drain's group at the JPL and corporate sponsors
>> as well are on the list.
>> What I want you to think about are the parallels between Perry and his
>> team joining matplotlib's development effort and Continuum's stated
>> desire to contribute to numpy development. Yes, STScI is a
>> not-for-profit entity operated by NASA, and Continuum is a
>> for-profit-entity with a not-for-profit arm (numfocus). But the
>> differences are not so great in my experience. Both for-profits and
>> not-for-profits experience institutional pressures to get code out on
>> a deadline. In fact, perhaps our "finest hour" in matplotlib
>> development came as a result of one of out not-for-profit client's
>> deadlines. My favorite story is when the Jet Propulsion Labs at
>> Caltech emailed me about the inadequacy of our ellipse approximations,
>> and gave us the constraint that the Mars Rover was scheduled to land
>> in the next few months. Talk about a hard deadline! Michael
>> Droettboom, under Perry's direction, implemented a
>> "8-cubic-spline-approximation-to-curves-in-the-viewport" solution that
>> I honestly think gives matplotlib the *best* approximation to such
>> curves anywhere. Period. Institutional deadlines to get working code
>> into the codebase, whether from a for-profit or not-for-profit entity,
>> and usually are a good thing. It may not be perfect going in, but it is
>> usually better for being there.
>> That is one example from matplotlib's history that illustrates the
>> benefit of institutional sponsers in a project. In this example, the
>> organizational goal -- getting the Rover to land without crashing -- is
>> one we can all relate to and support. And the resolution to the story,
>> in which a heroically talented developer (Michael D) steps up to
>> solve the problem, is one we can all aspire to. But the essential
>> ingredients of the story are not so different from what we face here:
>> an organization needs to solve a problem on a deadline; another
>> organization, possibly related, has the resources to get the job done;
>> all efforts are contributed to the public domain.
>> Now that brings me to my final and perhaps most controverisal point.
>> I don't believe democracy is the right solution for most open source
>> problems. As exhibit A, I reference the birth of numpy itself that I
>> discussed above. Numpy would have never happened if community input
>> were considered. I'm pretty sure that all of us that were there at
>> the time can attest to this.
>> Democracy is something that many of us have grown up by default to
>> consider as the right solution to many, if not most or, problems of
>> governance. I believe it is a solution to a specific problem of
>> governance. I do not believe democracy is a panacea or an ideal
>> solution for most problems: rather it is the right solution for which
>> the consequences of failure are too high. In a state (by which I mean
>> a government with a power to subject its people to its will by force
>> of arms) where the consequences of failure to submit include the
>> death, dismemberment, or imprisonment of dissenters, democracy is a
>> safeguard against the excesses of the powerful. Generally, there is
>> no reason to believe that the simple majority of people polled is the
>> "best" or "right" answer, but there is also no reason to believe that
>> those who hold power will rule beneficiently. The democratic ability
>> of the people to check to the rule of the few and powerful is
>> essential to insure the survival of the minority.
>> In open source software development, we face none of these problems.
>> Our power to fork is precisely the power the minority in a tyranical
>> democracy lacks: noone will kill us for going off the reservation. We
>> are free to use the product or not, to modify it or not, to enhance it
>> or not.
>> The power to fork is not abstract: it is essential. matplotlib, and
>> chaco, both rely *heavily* on agg, the Antigrain C++ rendering
>> library. At some point many years ago, Maxim, the author of Agg,
>> decided to change the license of Agg (circa version 2.5) to GPL rather
>> than BSD. Obviously, this was a non-starter for projects like mpl,
>> scipy and chaco which assumed BSD licensing terms. Unfortunately,
>> Maxim had a new employer which appeared to us to be dictating the
>> terms and our best arguments fell on deaf ears. No matter: mpl and
>> Enthought chaco have continued to ship agg 2.4, pre-GPL, and I think
>> that less than 1% of our users have even noticed. Yes, we forked the
>> project, and yes, noone has noticed. To me this is the ultimate
>> reason why governance of open source, free projects does not need to
>> be democratic. As painful as a fork may be, it is the ultimate
>> antidote to a leader who may not have your interests in mind. It is
>> an antidote that we citizens in a state government may not have.
>> It is true that numpy exists in a privileged position in a way that
>> matplotlib or scipy does not. Numpy is the core. Yes, Continuum is
>> different than STScI because Travis is both the lead of Numpy and the
>> lead of the company sponsoring numpy. These are important
>> differences. In the worst cases, we might imagine that these
>> differences will negatively impact numpy and associated tools. But
>> these worst case scenarios that we imagine will most likely simply
>> distract us from what is going on: Travis, one of the most prolific
>> and valuable contributers to the scientific python community, has
>> decided to refocus his efforts to do more. And that is a very happy
>> moment for all of us.
> Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective. As always, it is
> very interesting. I have only been involved with numpy for the past 3
> years. From my perspective, Chuck has been BDFL, in a sense. It is hard for
> me to imagine python without numpy, and it is difficult to fully appreciate
> the effort Travis has put in. Perspectives like your are useful for this.
> So, power is derived by a mandate from the masses. That part is always
> democratic. However, the form of governance is not required to be
> If we are agreeing to Travis being BDF12, then that is just as valid in my
> mind as us agreeing to some other structure. What is important is the
> community coming together and agreeing on this. Would that be fine for
If Ralf, Charles and David manage to get a stable 1.7 out.
Switching to MingW 4.x and gfortran for Windows would by high on my
> Ben Root
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion