Re: [scikit-learn] Vote: Add Adrin Jalali to the scikit-learn technical committee
+1 Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Jeremie du Boisberranger To: scikit-learn@python.org Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote: Add Adrin Jalali to the scikit-learn technical committee Date: 2020-04-27 21:23 +1 On 27/04/2020 15:18, Nicolas Hug wrote: > +1 > > On 4/27/20 9:16 AM, Gael Varoquaux wrote: >> +1 >> >> And thank you very much Adrin! >> >> On Mon, Apr 27, 2020 at 09:12:02AM -0400, Andreas Mueller wrote: >>> Hi All. >>> Given all his recent contributions, I want to nominate Adrin Jalali >>> to the >>> Technical Committee: >>> https://scikit-learn.org/stable/governance.html#technical-committee >>> According to the governance document, this will require a discussion >>> and >>> vote. >>> I think we can move to the vote immediately unless someone objects. >>> Thanks for all your work Adrin! >>> Cheers, >>> Andy >>> ___ >>> scikit-learn mailing list >>> scikit-learn@python.org >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP010: n_features_in_ attribute
+1 (seems that users are unhappy because we vote in the mailing list?) Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Gael Varoquaux To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP010: n_features_in_ attribute Date: 2019-12-04 12:34 +1. Great job! Gaël On Tue, Dec 03, 2019 at 05:58:44PM -0500, Nicolas Hug wrote: > +1 > On 12/3/19 5:40 PM, Adrin wrote: > +1 > On Tue., Dec. 3, 2019, 23:28 Andreas Mueller, wrote: > +1 > On 12/3/19 5:09 PM, Nicolas Hug wrote: > As per our Governance document, changes to API principles are to > be > established through an Enhancement Proposal (SLEP) from which any > core developer can call for a vote on its acceptance. > SLEP010: n_features_in attribute is up for a vote. Please see > > https://scikit-learn-enhancement-proposals.readthedocs.io/en/latest > /slep010/proposal.html > This SLEP proposes the introduction of a public n_features_in_ > attribute for most estimators > Core developers are invited to vote on this change until 4 January > 2020 by replying to this email thread. > All members of the community are welcome to comment on the > proposal > on this mailing list, or to propose minor changes through Issues > and Pull Requests at https://github.com/scikit-learn/ > enhancement_proposals/. > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn -- Gael Varoquaux Research Director, INRIA Visiting professor, McGill http://gael-varoquaux.infohttp://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments
I'll vote +1, though there're still lots of things to decide. Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Alexandre Gramfort To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Vote on SLEP009: keyword only arguments Date: 2019-09-12 03:43 > But overall I'm + 1 on forcing kwargs for all __init__ methods. yes I think it will help for __init__ methods Alex PS : I don't shoot people (usually...) ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Monthly meetings between core developers
I don't think it's worthwhile to worry too much about Beijing time if I'm the only person in Beijing. I'm happy to get up early once a month to learn from the great team! Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Alexandre Gramfort To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Monthly meetings between core developers Date: 2019-07-18 17:16 hi, I kind of like the project boards we used for sprints: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/projects/11 the outcome of the core devs meeting could be to agree what should be listed on such a priority board. my 2c Alex On Thu, Jul 18, 2019 at 10:59 AM Olivier Grisel wrote: > > I just found this planner to give it a try: > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingtime.html?day=29=7=2019=240=33=37=179=0 > > (Berlin and Paris are on the same timezone so I did not put only Berlin). > > It's going to be challenging to find a timeslot for every body. The > least extreme timeslot for everybody to attend at the same time would > be: > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2019=7=29=11=0=0=240=33=37=179 > > We could also arrange for a second timeslot later (that would be > Tuesday morning in Australia and China): > > https://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/meetingdetails.html?year=2019=7=29=21=0=0=240=33=37=179 > > I wouldn't mind doing a meeting around 11pm on Monday evening from > time to time but it would still be very early for Beijing. > > Just to let you know, I will be off from next Saturday till Monday > August 19 (big summer break :) so don't count on my for the first > meeting if you start the meetings in the mean time. > > Le jeu. 18 juil. 2019 à 00:15, Andreas Mueller a écrit : > > > > > > > > On 7/17/19 2:17 PM, Guillaume Lemaître wrote: > > > I am +1. This is a great initiative. > > > > > > IMO, we could make it really regular (i.e., a specific week-day of a > > > specific week in a month), with a rolling time (for the time-zone issue). > > > In this matter, we could maybe clear more in advance our agenda > > > instead of trying to find a date which accommodates everyone. > > > > > I agree, we could do something like the last Monday every month and > > alternate between two (or three) different time zones. > > We have CET (UTC+1), EST (UTC-5), CT (UTC+08), AEDT (USC+11) so that > > seems super easy, right? > > (TIL CST can stand for "Central"/US, China, and Cuba! not confusing at all) > > > > I agree that we should be as inclusive as possible, but I also don't > > want to create the expectation that some people (not thinking of any > > Australian in particular) > > who already sacrifice a lot of their free time have to invest even more > > time to keep up with the rest. > > > > I think the idea of posting write-ups will help being more inclusive in > > that regard. > > ___ > > scikit-learn mailing list > > scikit-learn@python.org > > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > > > > -- > Olivier > http://twitter.com/ogrisel - http://github.com/ogrisel > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] New core developers: thomasjpfan and nicolashug
Congratulations and welcome to the team! Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Joel Nothman To: Scikit-learn user and developer mailing list Subject: [scikit-learn] New core developers: thomasjpfan and nicolashug Date: 2019-04-04 07:52 The core developers of Scikit-learn have recently voted to welcome Thomas Fan and Nicolas Hug to the team, in recognition of their efforts and trustworthiness as contributors. Both happen to be working with Andy Mueller at Columbia University at the moment. Congratulations and thanks to them both! ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
[scikit-learn] API Discussion: Where shall we put the plotting functions?
See https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/13448 We've introduced several plotting functions (e.g., plot_tree and plot_partial_dependence) and will introduce more (e.g., plot_decision_boundary) in the future. Consequently, we need to decide where to put these functions. Currently, there're 3 proposals: (1) sklearn.plot.plot_YYY (e.g., sklearn.plot.plot_tree) (2) sklearn.plot.XXX.plot_YYY (e.g., sklearn.plot.tree.plot_tree) (3) sklearn.XXX.plot.plot_YYY (e.g., sklearn.tree.plot.plot_tree, note that we won't support from sklearn.XXX import plot_YYY) Joel Nothman, Gael Varoquaux and I decided to post it on the mailing list to invite opinions. Thanks Hanmin Qin___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?
Thanks. I'll take part in the OPTICS discussion and I'd like to see it at 14:00, though 10:00 will also be acceptable. The core issue now is how to design the API (i.e., use multiple extraction methods without calculating RD/CD again), and how to deal with the mysterious additions in _extract_optics (See https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/issues/12375. I'm unable to contact the original author so I tend to follow the original paper and remove these additions. This will get rid of some parameters and make the interface much more friendly IMO). For other issues, I don't think you need to consider my time. I'll comment on relevant issues if I have any thoughts. Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Joel Nothman To: Scikit-learn user and developer mailing list , Hanmin Qin Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points? Date: 2019-02-21 15:40 @Hanmin are there particular conversations you are keen to take part in, and particular times that suit you? On Thu., 21 Feb. 2019, 9:13 am Andreas Mueller, wrote: On 2/20/19 4:40 PM, Gael Varoquaux wrote: > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 06:16:20PM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote: >> I put a draft schedule here: >> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/wiki/Upcoming-events#technical-discussions-schedule > I'd like to discuss sample_props. They are important to me. > > Should I add them somewhere on the schedule? Maybe in a place where > people who care about them (AFAIK Joel and Alex also do) are available? > Sure, sounds like a plan. If they are discussed I'd like to be part of the discussion if possible given the complexity involved (and because I tried to implement it twice). But feel free to have it Monday without me if that works better. ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?
Maybe it's worthwhile to discuss (and release) 0.20.3 during the sprint. We're almost ready except for a few test failures on specific platforms. I've labeled all the related PRs (i.e., PRs with a what's new entry in 0.20.3) as 0.20.3. We need to decide whether we want to backport more bug fixes (maybe more doc/example corrections) to 0.20.3. Joel mentions this several times but seems that he hasn't made the decision. I tend to do so, though technically we should only include bug fixes related to features introduced in 0.20.X (but I won't argue if someone make the decision). Some bugs seems not trivial (e.g., #13142 related to BaseMixture and #13124 related to StratifiedKFold). Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Olivier Grisel To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points? Date: 2019-02-15 23:06 I would also add generalizing early stopping options to most estimators. This is a bit related to Joel's point on max_iter consistency in LogisticRegression. -- Olivier ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document
+1 (personally I still think it's better to keep the flow chart, it seems useful for beginners) Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Alexandre Gramfort To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document Date: 2019-02-11 01:29 +1 for me too Alex On Sat, Feb 9, 2019 at 10:06 PM Gilles Louppe wrote: Hi Andy, I read through to document. Even though I have not been really active these past months/years, I think it summarizes well our governance model. +1. Gilles On Sat, 9 Feb 2019 at 12:01, Adrin wrote: > > +1 > > Thanks for the work you've put in it! > > On Sat, Feb 9, 2019, 03:00 Andreas Mueller > >> Hey all. >> >> I want to call a vote on the final version on the scikit-learn >> governance document, which can be found in this PR: >> >> https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/pull/12878 >> >> It underwent some significant changes in the last couple of weeks. >> >> The two-sentence summary is: conflicts are resolved by vote among core >> devs, with a technical committee resolving anything that can not be >> decided by at least a 2/3 majority. The initial technical committee is >> Alexander Gramfort, Olivier Grisel, Joel Nothman, Hanmin Qin, Gaël >> Varoquaux and myself (Andreas Müller). >> >> I would ask all of the *core developers* to either vote +1 for the >> governance doc, -1 against it, or to explicitly abstain here on the >> public mailing list (which is the way any vote will be conducted >> according to the new governance document). >> >> I suggest we leave the vote open for two weeks, so that the decision is >> made before the sprint and we can take actions. >> >> Anyone can still comment on the PR or here, though I would rather not >> make more changes as this has already been discussed to some length. >> >> Thank you for participating, >> >> Andy >> >> ___ >> scikit-learn mailing list >> scikit-learn@python.org >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] Next Sprint
Apologies I won't be available because of school work.Thanks the whole community for your great help. I'll continue to contribute and keep online during the sprint. Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Gael Varoquaux To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Next Sprint Date: 2019-01-08 05:40 Hi everybody and happy new year, We let this thread about the sprint die. I hope that this didn't change people's plans. So, it seems that the week of Feb 25th is a good week. I'll assume that it's good for most and start planning from there (if it's not the case, let me know). I've started our classic sprint-planing wiki page: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/wiki/Upcoming-events It's not rocket science, but it's better than an email thread to keep information together. It would be great if people could add their name, and if they need funding. We need to evaluate if we need to find funding. Also, it's quite soon, so maybe it would be good to start planning accommodation and travel :$. Cheers, Gaël On Sat, Dec 22, 2018 at 05:27:39PM +0100, Guillaume Lemaître wrote: > Works for me as well. > Sent from my phone - sorry to be brief and potential misspell. > Original Message > From: scikit-learn@python.org > Sent: 22 December 2018 17:17 > To: scikit-learn@python.org > Reply to: rth.yurc...@pm.me; scikit-learn@python.org > Cc: rth.yurc...@pm.me > Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] Next Sprint > That works for me as well. > On 21/12/2018 16:00, Olivier Grisel wrote: > > Ok for me. The last 3 weeks of February are fine for me. > > Le jeu. 20 déc. 2018 à 21:21, Alexandre Gramfort > > mailto:alexandre.gramf...@inria.fr>> a écrit : > > ok for me > > Alex > > On Thu, Dec 20, 2018 at 8:35 PM Adrin > <mailto:adrin.jal...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > > > > > It'll be the least favourable week of February for me, but I can > > make do. > > > > > > On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 at 18:45 Andreas Mueller > <mailto:t3k...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > >> > > >> Works for me! > > >> > > >> On 12/19/18 5:33 PM, Gael Varoquaux wrote: > > >> > I would propose the week of Feb 25th, as I heard people say > > that they > > >> > might be available at this time. It is good for many people, > > or should we > > >> > organize a doodle? > > >> > > > >> > G > > >> > > > >> > On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 05:27:21PM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote: > > >> >> Can we please nail down dates for a sprint? > > >> >> On 11/20/18 2:25 PM, Gael Varoquaux wrote: > > >> >>> On Tue, Nov 20, 2018 at 08:15:07PM +0100, Olivier Grisel wrote: > > >> >>>> We can also do Paris in April / May or June if that's ok > > with Joel and better > > >> >>>> for Andreas. > > >> >>> Absolutely. > > >> >>> My thoughts here are that I want to minimize transportation, > > partly > > >> >>> because flying has a large carbon footprint. Also, for > > personal reasons, > > >> >>> I am not sure that I will be able to make it to Austin in > > July, but I > > >> >>> realize that this is a pretty bad argument. > > >> >>> We're happy to try to host in Paris whenever it's most > > convenient and to > > >> >>> try to help with travel for those not in Paris. > > >> >>> Gaël > > >> >>> ___ > > >> >>> scikit-learn mailing list > > >> >>> scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> > > >> >>> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > > >> >> ___ > > >> >> scikit-learn mailing list > > >> >> scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> > > >> >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > > >> > > >> ___ > > >> scikit-learn mailing list > > >> scikit-learn@python.org <mailto:scikit-learn@python.org> > > >> https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > > > > > > __
Re: [scikit-learn] ANN: Scikit-learn 0.20.2 released
0.20.2 is now available on conda default channel. Happy new year to everyone! The scikit-learn developer team - Original Message - From: Joel Nothman To: Scikit-learn user and developer mailing list Subject: [scikit-learn] ANN: Scikit-learn 0.20.2 released Date: 2019-01-01 09:28 A bug fix release of scikit-learn, version 0.20.2, was released a couple of weeks ago. It is not yet on Conda default channel, but should be available on pypi and conda-forge. Thank you to all who contributed. As well as the changes listed at https://scikit-learn.org/0.20/whats_new.html#version-0-20-2 and documentation improvements, we also corrected an error in packaging the source distribution for the previous release: we have made sure to use the latest cython this time. We still anticipate that there will be a further release in the 0.20 series to fix regressions from 0.19 to 0.20. Happy new year, and happy learning! The scikit-learn developer team ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] New core dev: Adrin Jalali
Welcome and thanks for contributing! Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Gael Varoquaux To: Scikit-learn mailing list Subject: Re: [scikit-learn] New core dev: Adrin Jalali Date: 2018-12-09 01:18 Indeed, welcome Adrin, and thanks a lot for your investment on the package! Gaël On Sat, Dec 08, 2018 at 09:26:15AM -0500, Andreas Mueller wrote: > Congratulations and welcome Adrin! > On 12/5/18 5:32 PM, Joel Nothman wrote: > The Scikit-learn core development team has welcomed a new member, Adrin > Jalali, who has been doing some really amazing work in contributing code > and reviews since July (aside from occasional contributions since 2014). > Congratulations and welcome, Adrin! > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn -- Gael Varoquaux Senior Researcher, INRIA Parietal NeuroSpin/CEA Saclay , Bat 145, 91191 Gif-sur-Yvette France Phone: ++ 33-1-69-08-79-68 http://gael-varoquaux.infohttp://twitter.com/GaelVaroquaux ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
Re: [scikit-learn] make all new parameters keyword-only?
I agree that this feature is advantageous and I'm +1 to apply it to new classes/functions, but for existing classes/functions, does it seem strange that only certain arguments are keyword only (i.e., some arguments can be specified by position, while others can't)? Hanmin Qin - Original Message - From: Andreas Mueller To: scikit-learn@python.org Subject: [scikit-learn] make all new parameters keyword-only? Date: 2018-11-15 05:01 Hi all. Since we'll be dropping Python2.7 soon, we can now use keyword-only arguments. I would argue that whenever we add any argument anywhere, we should make it keyword-only from now on, with the exception of X and y (probably). What do others think? Are there other features in Python3 that we should consider adopting for 0.21? The reason for making arguments keyword-only is that a) users are force to write more readable code b) deprecations and api changes have less side-effects Cheers, Andy ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn
