Hi, On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jason Grout <[email protected]> wrote: > On 7/2/11 6:54 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Why5: Because there was a belief that implementation was more >> important than discussion > > I hesitate to jump into the discussion here, but it seems to me that > Mark and others were making the point that beginning implementation > *informs* the discussion in a very valuable way. In a case like this > where it seems like the differences are fundamentally based on untested > assumptions (e.g., "this would be confusing" or "the consistency would > provide greater benefits than any confusion"), it seems that having an > implementation to play around with is a very valuable thing. Release > early and often, etc.
There is of course a time to make a draft implementation, and there's a time to discuss the API in the abstract. Here the primary discussion I was trying to start was about why the discussion failed and led to bad feeling. > Of course, it should also be pointed out that Mark and others are trying > to have a conference call, where (as they said it) the communication > bandwidth is greater, which hopefully would lead to more effective and > clear communication. I see that as a very responsible thing to do, > given the intensity of some of the feelings in this discussion. While phone-calls are often good, I think it would be a mistake to diagnose this problem as primarily one of hurt feelings. This is what I meant about 'Blame the process not the people'. I also feel strongly that it is important to have substantial discussions on-list in order to strengthen community involvement and ownership [1]. I am hoping that, in discussing the process, it will become clear how we can improve the way we work in order to make discussion richer, calmer, and more effective. Best, Matthew [1] http://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
