> The bottom line is that you or anyone else is welcome to fork the project and > be as welcoming as you like. But the project thrives on the basis that it is > well-contained and well-maintained, and that simply can't be assured of a > project without restrictive criteria for inclusion.
I think this is the crux of what I don’t understand. You seem to view scikit-learn like the core Python library, which must be carefully curated because it’s basically an extension of the language. There’s usually only one official core library package for a given task, so it’s supported and its quality is guaranteed. From my use of scikit-learn I view it more as a CRAN or CPAN (or PyPi) ecosystem: it’s a fairly loose framework supporting many plug-in modules of varying quality. There are many alternatives for a given task so it’s much more of a pick-and-choose ensemble. That’s why I was surprised by the FAQ answer about contributions. It seems to me contributed modules should pass tests and respect the basic API structure. Beyond that I don’t see why scikit-learn imposes popularity thresholds on contributions. But I didn’t come here to argue. I respect the immense work that’s gone into the project, and if that’s the way it’s run, so be it. Regards, -Tom ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Download BIRT iHub F-Type - The Free Enterprise-Grade BIRT Server from Actuate! Instantly Supercharge Your Business Reports and Dashboards with Interactivity, Sharing, Native Excel Exports, App Integration & more Get technology previously reserved for billion-dollar corporations, FREE http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=164703151&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk _______________________________________________ Scikit-learn-general mailing list Scikit-learn-general@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/scikit-learn-general
