Hi, These are some notes about the masking NEP discussion, in the hope that they will be useful for thinking about the NEP and other discussions in the future.
This is not a discussion about the masking API. I'm trying not to mix the mask discussion with the discussion-about-the-mask-discussion. Maybe some Points of agreement =============== 1) Blame the process not the people 2) It is useful to go back over controversial incidents to see how the current process works and how it can be improved. I believe that we as a community should aim for the discussion matching the following distinctive features of successful organizations [1] A) Calm, patient, ego-free leadership styles B) Vigorous discussion followed by group agreement C) Brutal realism There was considerable disagreement and some bad feeling during the discussion. The main axis of disagreement was between the alterNEP (Nathaniel, Matthew) and NEP camps (Mark). This was and is Mark's NEP, Mark is implementing it, and so Mark is and was in charge. Mark, as the person implementing, and in charge, has full authority on the final features. Now for areas of: Fruitful disagreement =============== Here I'm going to express my opinions in the hope that it is helpful. The main area for reflection should be the discussion of the alterNEP / NEP discussion. In the spirit of the Toyota 5 whys? [2] - let's ask why? Statement: the alterNEP / NEP discussion failed and led to bad feeling. Why1: Because we the aNEP party believed were were not being heard Why2: Because, when we asked for specific feedback, we did not get it Why3: Because the NEP party had in fact already decided to go for the NEP implementation Why4: Because Mark believed that he would lose implementation time by delaying for further discussion Why5: Because there was a belief that implementation was more important than discussion I think why5 are the most important of these. My personal belief here is that we should: a) Strengthen our commitment to full and open discussion before substantial API change. b) Be careful to state the timetable for future NEP discussion. If it is short for some reason, then we should be specific about that. I believe that will have the effect of i) Strengthening our community, so that it will be clear that each person making substantial comment will be fully heard. ii) Improving our code by improving the level of discussion. I think we must be particularly careful to avoid denial-by-delay [3] or the similar denial-by-no-reply, because these are both very toxic to openness and trust in discussion. Best, Matthew [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys [3] http://thinkexist.com/quotation/delay_is_the_deadliest_form_of_denial/253524.html _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
