On Tuesday, April 24, 2012, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 2:25 PM, Charles R Harris > <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > > > > > > 2012/4/24 Stéfan van der Walt <[email protected] <javascript:;>> > >> > >> On Tue, Apr 24, 2012 at 11:12 AM, Charles R Harris > >> <[email protected] <javascript:;>> wrote: > >> > The advantage of nans, I suppose, is that they are in the hardware and > >> > so > >> > >> Why are we having a discussion on NAN's in a thread on consensus? > >> This is a strong indicator of the problem we're facing. > >> > > > > We seem to have a consensus regarding interest in the topic. > > This email is mainly to Travis. > > This thread seems to be dying, condemning us to keep repeating the > same conversation with no result. > > Chuck has made it clear he is not interested in this conversation. > Until it is clear you are interested in this conversation, it will > keep dying. As you know, I think that will be very bad for numpy, > and, as you know, I care a great deal about that. > > So, please, if you care about this, and agree that something should be > done, please, say so, and if you don't agree something should be done, > say so. It can't better without your help, > > See you, > > Matthew >
Matthew, I agree with the general idea of consensus, and I think many of us here agree with the ideal in principle. Quite frankly, I am not sure what more you want from us. You are only going to get so much leeway on a philosophical discussion on goverance on a numerical computation mail list. The thread keeps "dying" (i say it is getting distracted) because coders are champing at the bit to get stuff done. In a sense, i think there is a consensus, if you will, to move on. All in favor, say "Aye!" Cheers! Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
