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 the founder of a company, which is working to >> make money from Numpy, the only decision maker on numpy - is - scary. > > How is this different from the situation of the last 4 years? Travis was > President at Enthought, which makes money from not only Numpy but SciPy as > well. In addition to employing Travis, Enthought also employees many other > key contributors to Numpy and Scipy, like Robert and David.
The difference is fairly obvious to me, but stop me if I'm wrong. First - although Enthought was in a position to influence numpy development, it didn't very much, partly, I suppose because Travis did not have time to contribute to numpy. The exception is of course the masked array stuff by Mark that caused a lot of controversy. > Furthermore, the Scipy and Numpy mailing lists and repos and web pages were > all hosted at Enthought. If they didn't like how a particular discussion was > going, they could have memory-holed the entire conversation from the > archives, or worse yet, revoked commit access and reverted changes. Obviously we should be realistic about the risks. Situations like that are very unlikely. > But such things never transpired, and of course most of us know that such > things would never happen. Right. > I don't see why the current situation is any different from the previous >situation, other than the fact that Travis actually plans on actively >developing Numpy again, and that hardly seems scary. It would be silly to be worried about Travis contributing to numpy, in general. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
