[SciPy-Dev] Proposal for Scikit-Signal - a SciPy toolbox for signal processing
Tue Jan 3 10:39:26 CST 2012
On Jan 3, 2012, at 5:47 AM, Robert Kern wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 3, 2012 at 09:00, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I don't know if this has already been discussed or not. But, I really don't understand the reasoning behind "yet-another-project" for signal processing. That is the whole-point of the signal sub-project under the scipy namespace. Why not just develop there? Github access is easy to grant.
>> I must admit, I've never been a fan of the scikits namespace. I would prefer that we just stick with the scipy namespace and work on making scipy more modular and easy to distribute as separate modules in the first place. If you don't want to do that, then just pick a top-level name and use it.
>> I disagree with Gael that there should be a scikits-signal package. There are too many scikits already that should just be scipy projects (with scipy available in modular form). In my mind, almost every scikits- project should just be a scipy- project. There really was no need for the scikits namespace in the first place.
> To be fair, the idea of the scikits namespace formed when the
> landscape was quite different and may no longer be especially
> relevant, but it had its reasons. Some projects can't go into the
> monolithic scipy-as-it-is for license, build, or development cycle
> reasons. Saying that scipy shouldn't be monolithic then is quite
> reasonable by itself, but no one has stepped up to do the work (I took
> a stab at it once). It isn't a reasonable response to someone who
> wants to contribute something. Enthusiasm isn't a fungible quantity.
> Someone who just wants to contribute his wrapper for whatever and is
> told to first go refactor a mature package with a lot of users is
> going to walk away. As they should.
This is an excellent point. I think SciPy suffers from the same issues that also affect the Python standard library. Like any organization, there is a dynamic balance between "working together" and "communication overhead" / dealing with legacy issues. I'm constantly grateful and inspired by the code that gets written and contributed by individuals. I would just like to see all of this code get more traction (and simple entry points are key for that). It's the main reason for my desire to see a Foundation that can sponsor the community.
My previously mentioned sadness comes from my inability to contribute meaningfully over the past couple of years, and the missing full time effort that would help keep the SciPy project more cohesive. I'm hopeful this can change either directly or indirectly this year.
Just to be clear, any sadness and frustration I feel is not with anyone in the community of people who are spending their free time writing code and contributing organizational efforts to making SciPy (both the package and the community) what it is. My frustration is directed squarely at myself for not being able to do more, both personally and in funding and sponsoring more.
In the end, I would just like to see more resources devoted to these efforts.
More information about the SciPy-Dev