Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever read in my life. Somehow companies are lurking around like the boogeyman and academics are completely free of ulterior motives and conflicts of interest? This is just asinine--we're all people and have various motivations. (Having just

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi, On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my >> intentions when I've done nothing but give away my

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I don't think I've contributed code to NumPy itself, but as someone involved in the scientific python ecosystem for a while, I can't see why people would consider Continuum less of a legitimate participant or community member than individual contributors, especially if the person behind it has

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

To expand on Ryan's point a bit about recusal... this is why we have a general policy against self-merging and why peer review is so valuable. A ban on self-merging is much like recusal, and I think it is a fantastic policy. As for a BDFL, I used to like that idea having seen it work well for

[Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Hi All, Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of the team. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Congrats Allan! Jaime On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:54 AM, Charles R Harris < charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi All, > > Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of > the team. > > Chuck > > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Thank you for posting that draft as it is a useful comparison to borrow from. I think Nathaniel's original document is a great start. Perhaps some tweaks along the lines of what you and Matt have suggested could also be useful. I agree that my proposal is mostly about altering the governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba as > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython is > now being adopted but was proposed 8 years ago that it "could

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

Of course it will be 1.10.0 final where all the problems will show up suddenly :-) Perhaps we can get to where we are testing Anaconda against beta releases better. -Travis On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 5:19 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > Just a heads up. The

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to the > NumPy community? That it be faster? Simpler to maintain? Easier to > extend?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Brian On 2015-09-21 23:28:48, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: >> very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not ready to adopt >> numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by some that, > > Who are you speaking for? The entire community? Under what mandate?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the > spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I > completely understand that the Steering Council is not to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi All, I've been reading this thread with amazement and a bit of worry. It seems Nathaniel's proposal is clearly an improvement, even if it is not perfect. But it is in the end for a project where, at least as seen from the outside, the main challenge is not in governance, but rather in having

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my > intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my > resources, and my sleep to NumPy for many, many years.I guess if your

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Thanks all. I'm very happy to contribute back to a project which has been so useful to me over many years! On 09/22/2015 04:53 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > Excellent news! Welcome Allan. > > -Travis > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Charles R Harris >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Commit rights for Allan Haldane

Excellent news! Welcome Allan. -Travis On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:54 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi All, > > Allan Haldane has been given commit rights. Here's to the new member of > the team. > > Chuck > > ___ >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > Hi All, > > Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in social > media for announcements. Of the ones listed in the subject, I would suggest Twitter is the most valuable. It has

[Numpy-discussion] ANN: Numpy 1.10.0rc1 released.

Hi all, I'm pleased to announce the availability of Numpy 1.10.0rc1. Sources and 32 bit binary packages for Windows may be found at Sourceforge . Please test this out, as I would like to move to the final

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest. Of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

+1 for twitter +0 for the others On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:14 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 9:58 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > Hi All, > > > > Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: [...] >> When it comes to evolving these APIs in general: one unfortunate thing >> about the PyArrayObject changes in 1.7 is that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:19 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:43 PM, Charles R Harris > wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:23 PM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > [...] > >> When it comes to evolving these

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into

[Numpy-discussion] facebook, twitter, and g+

Hi All, Just posting to elicit thoughts about scipy.org having a presence in social media for announcements. Chuck ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] ANN: Numpy 1.10.0rc1 released.

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:12 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: > Hi all, > > I'm pleased to announce the availability of Numpy 1.10.0rc1. Sources and 32 > bit binary packages for Windows may be found at Sourceforge. Please test > this out, as I would like to move to the

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > > I guess we've gone off the rails pretty far at this point, so let me at > least take a step back, and make sure that you know that: > > - I have never doubted that your intensions for NumPy are anything but >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I am not upset nor was I ever upset about discussing the possibility of conflict of interest. Of course it can be discussed --- but it should be discussed directly about specific things --- and as others have said it is generally easily handled when it actually could arise. The key is to

[Numpy-discussion] Tentative NumPy Tutorial inaccessible

Hi! The Tentative NumPy Tutorial is no longer accessible by the URL http://wiki.scipy.org/Tentative_NumPy_Tutorial, it returns a 403. The link to this page is still on NumPy homepage though. Has the page been moved somewhere else? --- Regards, Andriy Yurchuk

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> There is ample history of such things happening in OSS history, so I think >> that's a fair concern, even if that has not happened for

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba > as > > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> I have no expectation that continuum will follow any of these paths, > and in most cases am not even sure what that would mean, BUT just > because I think it is useful to have a wide variety of concrete > examples to draw on -- data is good! -- there actually are *lots* of > examples of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Bryan, I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it if we could keep the discussion on a less visceral level? Nobody's personal integrity is being impugned, but it's the nature of this kind of governance discussion that we have to consider unlikely-and-unpleasant hypotheticals.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 21:38:36 -0700 Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi Antoine, > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Antoine Pitrou wrote: > > > > Hi Nathaniel, > > > > On Sun, 20 Sep 2015 21:13:30 -0700 > > Nathaniel Smith wrote: > >> Given this, I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything *except* resolve disputes that cannot be resolved without one. Like you, I would

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> > > > > May? Can you elaborate? More speculation. My own position is that > > these projects want to integrate with NumPy, not the > > converse. Regardless of my opinion, can you actually make any specific > > arguements, one way or the otehr? What if if some integrations > > actually make more

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

On Sep 21, 2015 11:51 PM, "Travis Oliphant" wrote: > > Of course it will be 1.10.0 final where all the problems will show up suddenly :-) > > Perhaps we can get to where we are testing Anaconda against beta releases better. The most useful thing would actually not even

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being > usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by > indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that > > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> I don't know how productive it is to dream up examples, but it's not Well, agreed, to be honest. > very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not ready to adopt > numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by some that, Who are you speaking for? The entire community?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > The FUD I'm talking about is the anti-company FUD that has influenced > discussions in the past.I really hope that we can move past this. > I have mostly stayed out of the governance discussion, in deference to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

Absolutely it would be good if others can test. All I was suggesting is that we do run a pretty decent set of tests upon build and that would be helpful. If the numpy build recipes are not available, it is only because they have not been updated to use conda-build yet. If somebody wants to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it if we > could keep the discussion on a less visceral level? Nobody's personal > integrity is being impugned, but it's the nature of this kind of >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Di, 2015-09-22 at 05:44 -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it > if we > could keep the discussion on a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being >> usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 20/09/15 20:20, Travis Oliphant wrote: 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, and pauli. 3 - add me as a permanent member of the steering council. I have stayed out of this governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I don’t think anyone has invested as much personal time and resources (e.g., money) towards supporting numpy, and not just in creating it but through efforts

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 22/09/15 14:31, Perry Greenfield wrote: I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I have no idea where this distrust comes from. Nobody has invested so much of their time in NumPy. Without

Re: [Numpy-discussion] 1.10.0rc1 coming tomorrow, 22 Sept.

On Tue, 22 Sep 2015 04:43:18 -0500 Travis Oliphant wrote: > Absolutely it would be good if others can test. All I was suggesting is > that we do run a pretty decent set of tests upon build and that would be > helpful. > > If the numpy build recipes are not available, it is

Re: [Numpy-discussion] draft NEP for breaking ufunc ABI in a controlled way

Hi, This e-mail is an attempt at proposing an API to solve Numba's needs. Attribute access int PyUFunc_Nin(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nin. int PyUFunc_Nout(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nout. int PyUFunc_Nargs(PyUFuncObject *) Replaces ufunc->nargs.