On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, 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 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 hope I'm not pitching a log onto the fire here, > >> but in numpy's case, there are very many capable developers on other > >> projects who depend on numpy who could credibly threaten a fork if they > >> felt numpy was drastically going wrong. > > > > Jason, that there capable developers out there that are able to fork > NumPy (or any other project you can realize) is a given. The point Dag was > signaling is that this threaten is more probable to happen *inside* the > community. > > > > And you pointed out an important aspect too by saying "if they felt > numpy was drastically going wrong". It makes me the impression that some > people is very frightened about something really bad would happen, well > before it happens. While I agree that this is *possible*, I'd also > advocate to give Travis the benefit of doubt. I'm convinced he (and > Continuum as a whole) is making things happen that will benefit the entire > NumPy community; but in case something gets really wrong and catastrophic, > it is always a relief to know that things can be reverted in the pure open > source tradition (by either doing a fork, creating a new foundation, or > even better, proposing a new way to do things). What it does not sound > reasonable to me is to allow fear to block Continuum efforts for making a > better NumPy. I think it is better to relax a bit, see how things are > going, and then judge by looking at the *results*. > > I'm finding this conversation a bit frustrating. > > The question on the table as I understand it, is just the following: > > Is there any governance structure / procedure / set of guidelines that > would help ensure the long-term health of the numpy project? > > The subtext of your response is that you regard *any structure at all* > as damaging to the numpy effort and in particular, as damaging to the > efforts of Continuum. It seems to me that is a very extreme point of > view, and I think, honestly, it is not tenable. > That's not exactly how I'd interpret Peter's answer. > > 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? > > David has made a concrete proposal for a procedure. It looks to me like that's an appropriate and adequate safeguard against Continuum pushing things into Numpy. Would that be enough for you? If not, would it at least be a good start? Ralf
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion