[Numpy-discussion] What is consensus anyway
Tue Apr 24 18:28:50 CDT 2012
On Apr 24, 2012, at 5:52 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt <email@example.com>
>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris
>>> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>>>> The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and
>>> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus?
>>> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing.
>> We seem to have a consensus regarding interest in the topic.
> This email is mainly to Travis.
> This thread seems to be dying, condemning us to keep repeating the
> same conversation with no result.
> Chuck has made it clear he is not interested in this conversation.
> Until it is clear you are interested in this conversation, it will
> keep dying. As you know, I think that will be very bad for numpy,
> and, as you know, I care a great deal about that.
I am interested in the conversation, but I think I've already stated my views as well as I know how. I'm not sure what else I should do at this point. We do need consensus (defined as the absence of serious objectors) for me to agree to a NumPy 1.X release.
I don't think it helps us get to a consensus to further discuss non-technical issues at this point.
There is much interest in ideas for finding common ground in the masked array situation, but that should happen on another thread.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion