On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:20 AM, John Hunter wrote:
clip
And he has proven his ability to lead when *almost everyone* was
against him. At the height of the Numeric/numarray split, and I was
deeply involved in this as the mpl author because we had a numerix
compatibility layer to allow users to
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:54 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging
An example I really like is LibreOffice's get involved page.
http://www.libreoffice.org/get-involved/
Producing something similar for NumPy will take some work, but I believe it's
needed.
Speaking as someone who has contributed to numpy in a microscopic fashion, I
agree completely. I
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't
be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
(This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can
credibly threaten to fork the project.)
Interesting point. I
On Feb 15, 2012, at 6:18 PM, Joe Harrington wrote:
Of course, balancing all of this (and our security blanket) is the
possibility of someone splitting the code if they don't like how
Continuum runs things. Perry, you've done that yourself to this
code's
predecessor, so you know the
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't
be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
(This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can
credibly
On 2/16/12 6:23 AM, Francesc Alted wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't be reached by other
means, the developers are the one making the calls. (This is
simply a consequence that they
If I can chime in as a newcomer on this list:
I don't think a conflict of interest is at all likely, but I can see
the point of those saying that it's worth thinking about this while
everything is going well. If any tension does arise, it will be all
but impossible to decide on a fair governance
On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyver tak...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
but I can't help myself.
I propose
On 2/16/12 8:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyvertak...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:08 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
The question is more about what can possibly be done about it. To really
shift power, my hunch is that the only practical way would be to, like
Mark said, make sure there are very active non-Continuum-employed
developers. But perhaps I'm
On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
On 16 February 2012 15:08, Thomas Kluyvertak...@gmail.com wrote:
It strikes me that the effort everyone's put into this thread could
have by now designed some way to resolve disputes. ;-)
This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would
have discussions in order to veto pull requests, I don't know
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated
people putting in lots of time.
That's not what Travis, or anyone else, proposed.
Travis
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:23 AM, Inati, Souheil (NIH/NIMH) [E] As
great and trustworthy as Travis is, there is a very real
potential for conflict of interest here. He is going to be leading an
organization to raise and distribute funding and at the same time leading a
commercial for profit
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett
Personally, I
would say that making the founder of a company, which is working to
make money from Numpy, the only decision maker on numpy -
is - scary.
not to me:
-- power always goes to those that actually write the code
-- as far as I can
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
If non-contributing users came along on the
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:09 AM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:53 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 9:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:27 AM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted franc...@continuum.io wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when agreement can't
be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted franc...@continuum.io
wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
But surely - surely - the best thing to do here is to formulate
something that might be acceptable, and for everyone to say what they
think the problems would be. Do you agree?
Absolutely -- but just like anything
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
Why not the NA discussion? Would we really want to have that happen again?
Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be made
(I think the last thread did an excellent job of fleshing out the ideas,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted franc...@continuum.io wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
But in the very end, when
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught tra...@vaught.net wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated
people putting in lots of
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 2:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught tra...@vaught.net wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
people putting in
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught tra...@vaught.net wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
people putting in
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught tra...@vaught.net wrote:
On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
Travis's
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught tra...@vaught.net
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:45 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
charlesr.har...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith n...@pobox.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught
This has been a clarifying discussion for some people. I'm glad people are
speaking up. I believe in the value of consensus and the value of users
opinions.I want to make sure that people who use NumPy and haven't yet
learned how to contribute, feel like they have a voice. I have
Hi,
Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very
successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the
Matthew,
What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don't go wrong.
But, I personally don't agree that it is necessary to
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Matthew,
What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the
future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort
of things that can go wrong --- it will help
On 2012-02-16, at 1:28 PM, Charles R Harris wrote:
I think this is a good point, which is why the idea of a long term release is
appealing. That release should be stodgy and safe, while the ongoing
development can be much more radical in making changes.
I sort of thought this *was* the
Hi,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
Striving for consensus does not mean that a minority
automatically gets veto rights.
'Striving' for
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.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
Hi John,
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter jdh2...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.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
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac
alan.is...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml', 'alan.is...@gmail.com');
wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 12:54 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Thursday, February 16, 2012, John Hunter wrote:
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com
wrote:
On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
This has not been an encouraging episode in
On 16 February 2012 17:31, Bruce Southey bsout...@gmail.com wrote:
On 02/16/2012 08:06 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
This is not intended to downplay the concerns raised in this thread,
but I can't help myself.
I propose the following (tongue-in-cheek) patch against the current
numpy master
Le 15/02/2012 04:07, Bruce Southey a écrit :
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
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
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.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
Hello,
From: Matthew Brett [matthew.br...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2012 1:50 PM
To: Discussion of Numerical Python
Subject: Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaac alan.is
On 2/15/2012 1:50 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
I believe that leaving the governance informal and underspecified at
this stage would be a grave mistake, for everyone concerned.
To justify that concern, can you point to an
analogous case, where things went awry by not
formalizing the governance
On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaacalan.is...@gmail.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
On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
I think it is only fair that the group occasionally pings this mailing-list
for important progress reports.
No offense intended, but that sounds like an unfunded mandate.
More useful would be an offer to liaison between the two.
Cheers,
Alan
Hi,
Thanks for these interesting and specific questions.
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:33 AM, Eric Firing efir...@hawaii.edu wrote:
On 02/15/2012 08:50 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:51 AM, Alan G Isaacalan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/14/2012 10:07 PM, Bruce Southey
On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would
help resolve disputes.
How? I'm not seeing it.
Who would have behaved differently and why?
Alan
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you provide an example where a more formal
governance structure for NumPy would have meant
more or better code development? (Please do not
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:03 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote:
The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure
would help resolve disputes.
How? I'm not seeing it.
Who would have behaved differently and why?
My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew
and Benjamin's for a few reasons.
1. The problem has been miscast.
The economic interests of the developers *always*
has had an apparent conflict with the economic
interests of the users: users want developers to work more
on the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com
wrote:
Can you provide an example where a more formal
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
[...]
My 2 cents.
I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of
examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it
depends on the people and their willingness to continue cooperating.
Formal governance
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett
matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root ben.r...@ou.edu wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew
and Benjamin's for a few reasons.
1. The problem has been miscast.
The economic interests of the developers *always*
has had an apparent conflict with the
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
My analysis is fundamentally different than Matthew
and Benjamin's for a few reasons.
1. The problem has been miscast.
The
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.com wrote:
for the core developers. The right way to produce a
governance structure is to make concrete proposals and
show how these proposals are in the interest of the
*developers* (as well as of the users).
At this point,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM, T J tjhn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac alan.is...@gmail.comwrote:
for the core developers. The right way to produce a
governance structure is to make concrete proposals and
show how these proposals are in the interest of
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.comwrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal
model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I
would say that making the founder of a company, which is working to
make money from Numpy, the only
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Peter Wang pw...@streamitive.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal
model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I
would say that making
On 2/15/12 3:25 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
4) It is possible for Continuum to want features that are good for
Continuum, but bad for the code-base in general. For example,
Continuum may have some product that requires a particular arcane
feature in numpy.
Through these mechanisms, Numpy can
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:00 PM, Perry Greenfield pe...@stsci.edu wrote:
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
[...]
My 2 cents.
[...]
I am both elated and concerned. Since it's obvious what there is to be
elated about, this post has a concerned tone. But overall, I think
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com
mailto:mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM, Mark
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:55 PM,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM,
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull
requests occur, and who has
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
combination of
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
combination of
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:57 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
mailto:matthew.br...@gmail.com
On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
combination of how the design discussions are
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
There certainly is
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been
discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could
have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 5:26 PM, Mark Wiebe mwwi...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:57 PM, josef.p...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no wrote:
On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:36
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 10:30 PM, Peter Wang pw...@streamitive.com wrote:
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:36 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
Honestly - as I was saying to Alan and indirectly to Ben - any formal
model - at all - is preferable to the current situation. Personally, I
would say that making the
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote:
Hi Travis,
It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to
work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen.
I am slightly confused
There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would
like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more
information about that.John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry
Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foundation.
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would
like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more
information about that. John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me,
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the
other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my
intention.
My point is that there are two ways go to about this
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io
wrote:
There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you
would
like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the
other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is
I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of
these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of
course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be
prominent on the numpy/scipy pages(maybe others?). It should also
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the
list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for
Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been
discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could
have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity
for people to provide input.
I am on the numpy, scipy,
On 2/14/12 7:17 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote:
* Fund Open Source Projects in Science (currently NumPy, SciPy,
IPython, and Matplotlib are first-tier with a whole host of second-tier
projects that could received funding)
* through grants
So, for example, would the Foundation
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been
discussions of these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of
this group. Of course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it
should be
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote:
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the
list
for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that
94 matches
Mail list logo
