Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > > I don't agree here. People work on open source to scratch an itch, so the > process of making a contribution needs to be easy. Widespread veto makes it > more difficult and instead of opening up the process, closes it down. There > is less freedom, not more. That is one of the reasons that the smaller > scikits attract people, they have more freedom to do what they want and > fewer people to answer to. Scipy also has some of that advantage because > there are a number of packages to choose from. The more strict the process > and the more people to please, the less appealing the environment becomes. > This can be observed in practice and the voluntary nature of FOSS amplifies > the effect. > > > It is true that it is easier to get developers to contribute to small > projects where they can control exactly what happens and not have to appeal > to a wider audience to get code changed and committed. This effect is > well-illustrated by the emergence of scikits in the presence of SciPy. > > However, the idea that "people work on open source to scratch an itch" is > incomplete.
Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base? Compared to - say - Sympy? Why do you think this is? Would you consider asking that question directly on list and asking for the most honest possible answers? Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
