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

Ralf Gommers ralf.gommers@googlemail....
Sat Oct 29 05:26:19 CDT 2011

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. Therefore
> Mark's
> > choice of implementing something and then asking for feedback made sense
> to
> > me.
> I should point out that the implementation hasn't - as far as I can
> see - changed the discussion.  The discussion was about the API.
Implementations are useful for agreed APIs because they can point out
> where the API does not make sense or cannot be implemented.  In this
> case, the API Mark said he was going to implement - he did implement -
> at least as far as I can see.  Again, I'm happy to be corrected.

Implementations can also help the discussion along, by allowing people to
try out some of the proposed changes. It also allows to construct examples
that show weaknesses, possibly to be solved by an alternative API. Maybe you
can hold the complete history of this topic in your head and comprehend it,
but for me it would be very helpful if someone said:
- here's my dataset
- this is what I want to do with it
- this is the best I can do with the current implementation
- here's how API X would allow me to solve this better or simpler

This can be done much better with actual data and an actual implementation
than with a design proposal. You seem to disagree with this statement.
That's fine. I would hope though that you recognize that concrete examples
help people like me, and construct one or two to help us out.

> >> In saying that we are insisting on our way, you are saying, implicitly,
> 'I
> >> am not going to negotiate'.
> >
> > That is only your interpretation. The observation that Mark compromised
> > quite a bit while you didn't seems largely correct to me.
> The problem here stems from our inability to work towards agreement,
> rather than standing on set positions.  I set out what changes I think
> would make the current implementation OK.  Can we please, please have
> a discussion about those points instead of trying to argue about who
> has given more ground.
> > That commitment would of course be good. However, even if that were
> possible
> > before writing code and everyone agreed that the ideas of you and
> Nathaniel
> > should be implemented in full, it's still not clear that either of you
> would
> > be willing to write any code. Agreement without code still doesn't help
> us
> > very much.
> I'm going to return to Nathaniel's point - it is a highly valuable
> thing to set ourselves the target of resolving substantial discussions
> by consensus.   The route you are endorsing here is 'implementor
> wins'.

I'm not. All I want to point out is is that design and implementation are
not completely separated either.

> We don't need to do it that way.  We're a mature sensible
> bunch of adults


> who can talk out the issues until we agree they are
> ready for implementation, and then implement.

The history of this discussion doesn't suggest it straightforward to get a
design right first time. It's a complex subject.

The second part of your statement, "and then implement", sounds so simple.
The reality is that there are only a handful of developers who have done a
significant amount of work on the numpy core in the last two years. I
haven't seen anyone saying they are planning to implement (part of) whatever
design the outcome of this discussion will be. I don't think it's strange to
keep this in mind to some extent.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20111029/f96fac3c/attachment.html 

More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list