[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Thu Feb 16 22:50:35 CST 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac <email@example.com> wrote:
>> 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.
I thought I'd looked deep in my heart and failed to find paranoia
about corporate involvement in numpy.
I am happy that Travis formed Continuum and look forward to the
progress we can expect for numpy.
I don't think the conversation was much about 'democracy'. As far as
I was concerned, anything on the range of "no change but at least
being specific" to "full veto power from mailing list members" was up
for discussion and anything in between.
I wish we had not had to deal with the various red herrings here, such
as whether Continuum is good or bad, whether Travis has been given
adequate credit, or whether companies are bad for software. But, we
did. It's fine. Argument over now.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion