[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Wed Feb 15 12:50:44 CST 2012
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
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.
I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at
this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion