Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Le 15/02/2012 04:07, Bruce Southey a écrit : The one thing that gets over looked here is that there is a huge diversity of users with very different skill levels. But very few people have an understanding of the core code. (In fact the other thread about type-casting suggests that it is extremely few people.) So in all of this, I do not yet see 'community'. But the only way you can change that perception is through actions. Hi Bruce, I agree with the skill issue you raised. My own experience being : 1) For some years, I've been a quite heavy user of numpy and various scipy modules. Zero knowledge of the numpy code 2) I recently (November 2011) subscribed to numpy scipy ML. Going through the various topics coming every day, I feel like I'm learning more faster. I'm now browsing numpy's GitHub from time to time. 3) Now I see regularly messages about topics like datetime(64) and NAs about which I feel I could share my ($.02 !) views as a user or as a potential user. But in the end I don't write anything because the issue is so complex that I feel both lost and silly. I have no solution to propose, so I try to keep on learning... -- Pierre ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'? I see it a different way. First, the Foundation is not a NumPy-governance thing. Certainly it could grow in that direction over time, but it isn't there now, nor is that its goal. Second, the Foundation is just getting started. It's only come together over the past couple of weeks. The fact that we are talking about it now, seems to me to indicate that it is quite open --- certainly closer to 'open' then you seem to imply. Also, the fact that there was a public mailing list for its discussion certainly sounds open to me (poorly advertised I will grant you). I tried to include as many people as I thought were interested by the responses to the initial emails on the list. I reached out to people that contacted me expressing their interest, and included them on the mailing list. I can accept that I made mistakes. I can guarantee that I will make more. Your feedback is appreciated and noted. The fact is that the Foundation is really a service organization that will require a lot of work to run and administer. It's effectiveness at fulfilling its mission will depend on how well it serves the group on this list, as well as the other groups that are working on Python for Science. I'm all for getting as many volunteers as we can get for the Foundation. I've just been trying to get things organized. Sometimes this works best by phone calls and direct contact, rather than mailing lists. For those interested. The Foundation mission is to: * Promote Open Source Software for Science * Fund Open Source Projects in Science (currently NumPy, SciPy, IPython, and Matplotlib are first-tier with a whole host of second-tier projects that could received funding) * through grants * through code bounties * through graduate-student scholarships * Sponsor sprints * Sponsor conferences * Sponsor student travel * etc., etc. Whether or not it can do any of those things depends on whether or not it can raise money from people and organizations that benefit from the Scientific Python Stack. All of this will be advertised more as the year progresses. This sounds really exciting. I'm looking forward to seeing what you, Mark, et al release over the next year. -Chris Jordan-Squire Best regards, -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 10:25 AM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: On Feb 14, 2012, at 3:32 AM, David Cournapeau wrote: Hi Travis, It is great that some resources can be spent to have people paid to work on NumPy. Thank you for making that happen. I am slightly confused about roadmaps for numpy 1.8 and 2.0. This needs discussion on the ML, and our release manager currently is Ralf - he is the one who ultimately decides what goes when. Thank you for reminding me of this. Ralf and I spoke several days ago, and have been working on how to give him more time to spend on SciPy full-time. As a result, he will be release managing NumPy 1.7, but for NumPy 1.8, I will be the release manager again. Ralf will continue serving as release manager for SciPy. For NumPy 2.0 and beyond, Mark Wiebe will likely be the release manager. I only know that I won't be release manager past NumPy 1.X. I am also not completely comfortable by having a roadmap advertised to Pycon not coming from the community. This is my bad wording which is a function of being up very late. At PyCon we will be discussing the roadmap conversations that are taking place on this list. We won't be presenting anything there related to the NumPy project that has not first been discussed here. The community will have ample opportunity to provide input, suggestions, and criticisms for anything that goes into NumPy --- the same as I've always done before when releasing open source software. In fact, I will also be discussing at PyCon, the creation of NumFOCUS (NumPy Foundation for Open Code for Usable Science) which has been organized precisely for ensuring that NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib, and IPython stay community-focused and community-led even while receiving input and money from multiple companies and organizations. There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more information about that. John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foundation. But, I expect the Foundation directors to evolve over time. I should say that I have no knowledge of the events above other than from the mailing list (I say that only because some of you may know that I'm a friend and colleague of Jarrod and Fernando). Travis - I hope you don't mind, but here I post some links that I have just found: http://technicaldiscovery.blogspot.com/2012/01/transition-to-continuum.html http://www.continuum.io/ I see that you've founded a new company, Continuum Analytics, and you are working with Peter Wang, Mark Wiebe, Francesc Alted (PyTables), and Bryan Van de Ven. I think you mentioned this earlier in one of the recent threads. In practice this gives your company an overwhelming voice in the direction of numpy. From the blog post you say: This may also mean different business models and licensing around some of the NumPy-related code that the company writes. Obviously your company will need to make enough money to cover your salaries and more. There is huge potential here for clashes of interest, and for perceived clashes of interest. The perceived clashes are just as damaging as the actual clashes. I still don't think we've got a Numpy steering group. The combination of the huge concentration of numpy resources in your company, and a lack of explicit community governance, seems to me to be something that needs to be fixed urgently. Do you agree? Is there any reason why the numfocus group was formed without obvious public discussion about it's composition, remit or governance? I'm not objecting to it's composition, but I think it is a mistake to make large decisions like this without public consultation. I imagine that what happened was that things moved too fast to make it attractive to slow the process by public discussion. I implore you to slow down and commit yourself to have that discussion in full and in public, in the interests of the common ownership of the project. Best, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more information about that.John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foundation. But, I expect the Foundation directors to evolve over time. I should say that I have no knowledge of the events above other than from the mailing list (I say that only because some of you may know that I'm a friend and colleague of Jarrod and Fernando). Thanks for speaking up, Matthew. I knew that this was my first announcement of the Foundation to this list. Things are still just starting around that organization, and so there is plenty of time for input. This sort of thing has actually been under-way for a long time --- it just has not received much impetus until now for one reason or another. To be clear, there were several email posts about a Foundation to this list last fall and we took the discussion of the Foundation that has really been in the works for a couple of years (thanks to Jarrod), to a Google Group (very poorly) called Fastechula.There were 33 people who signed up for that list and discussions continued sporadically on that list away from this one. When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. But, I also did not want to consume this mailing list with something that might be considered off-topic. I repeat that there is still plenty time for input. Obviously, the board has been selected. But that must be done by someone. I took the liberty to invite the first board members who graciously accepted the assignment. I consider the Foundation a service opportunity. I'm grateful that representatives from the major projects are willing to serve. I expect that to be a tradition, but it is one that needs to be discussed and developed. Yes, I have started a new company with Peter Wang. However, most of the people on this list will probably be most interested in the NumFOCUS work. The goal of the Foundation is to promote the entire Scientific Computing with Python ecosystem. It will not be taking over any of the public mailing lists where there is already a great deal of opportunity to express opinions and desires. The Foundation will have it's own public mailing list where mostly financial and funding matters that are common to all of the projects can be sent and discussed. Go here and sign up for the public mailing list if you are interested in the Foundation: http://groups.google.com/group/numfocus?hl=en We will be discussing the Foundation at PyCon as well. This may also mean different business models and licensing around some of the NumPy-related code that the company writes. Obviously your company will need to make enough money to cover your salaries and more. There is huge potential here for clashes of interest, and for perceived clashes of interest. The perceived clashes are just as damaging as the actual clashes. Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined.I trust that people will observe results and come to expect good things that will naturally emerge by having more talented people involved in the process who are being directed by the community needs. I still don't think we've got a Numpy steering group. The combination of the huge concentration of numpy resources in your company, and a lack of explicit community governance, seems to me to be something that needs to be fixed urgently. Do you agree? I'm sensitive to the perception that some might have that Continuum might hi-jack NumPy. That is the central reason I am very supportive of and pushing the organization of NumFOCUS. I want corporate dollars that flow to NumPy to have some buffering between the money that is being spent and what is promoted. This can be a delicate situation, but I think it can also work well. RedHat, IBM, and Google all cooperate to make Linux better through the Linux Foundation. The same needs to be the case with NumPy. This will depend, of course, on everybody on this list and they way they receive new input and the way they communicate with each other. I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris.Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight.Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more information about that. John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foundation. But, I expect the Foundation directors to evolve over time. I should say that I have no knowledge of the events above other than from the mailing list (I say that only because some of you may know that I'm a friend and colleague of Jarrod and Fernando). Thanks for speaking up, Matthew. I knew that this was my first announcement of the Foundation to this list. Things are still just starting around that organization, and so there is plenty of time for input. This sort of thing has actually been under-way for a long time --- it just has not received much impetus until now for one reason or another. To be clear, there were several email posts about a Foundation to this list last fall and we took the discussion of the Foundation that has really been in the works for a couple of years (thanks to Jarrod), to a Google Group (very poorly) called Fastechula. There were 33 people who signed up for that list and discussions continued sporadically on that list away from this one. When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. The counter-argument usually goes 'members X, Y and Z are of impeccable integrity and would only do what is best for the public good'. And usually, members X, Y and Z are indeed of impeccable integrity. Nevertheless I'm sure I don't have to unpack the evidence that this approach frequently fails and can fail in a catastrophic way. Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined. Are you proposing that the Foundation oversee Numpy governance and direction? From your chosen members I'm guessing that the idea is for the foundation to think about broad strategy rather than - say - whether missing values should be encoded with masked arrays? I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris. Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight. Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this list whose opinions will be listened to and heard. In fact, I hope that many more people will come to the list and speak out as development increases. The point I was making was that the concentration of numpy development hours and talent in your company makes it urgent that the numpy governance is set out formally, that the interests of the company are made clear, and that the steering group can be assured of explicit and public independence from the interests of the company, if and when that becomes necessary. In the past, the numpy steering group has seemed a virtual organization, formed ad-hoc when needed, and with no formal governance. I'm saying that I firmly believe that has to change, to avoid the actual or perceived loss of community ownership. Best, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined. Are you proposing that the Foundation oversee Numpy governance and direction? From your chosen members I'm guessing that the idea is for the foundation to think about broad strategy rather than - say - whether missing values should be encoded with masked arrays? No, I am not proposing that.The Foundation will be focused on higher-level broad strategy sorts of things: mostly around how to raise money and how to direct that money to projects that have their own development cycles. I would think the Foundation would be interested in paying for things like issue trackers and continuous integration servers as well. It will leave NumPy management to this list and the people who have gathered around this watering hole.Obviously, there will be points of connection, but exactly how this will play-out depends on who shows up to both organizations. I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris.Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight.Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this list whose opinions will be listened to and heard. In fact, I hope that many more people will come to the list and speak out as development increases. The point I was making was that the concentration of numpy development hours and talent in your company makes it urgent that the numpy governance is set out formally, that the interests of the company are made clear, and that the steering group can be assured of explicit and public independence from the interests of the company, if and when that becomes necessary. In the past, the numpy steering group has seemed a virtual organization, formed ad-hoc when needed, and with no formal governance. I'm saying that I firmly believe that has to change, to avoid the actual or perceived loss of community ownership. I hear your point.Thank you for sharing it.Fortunately, we are having this discussion, and plan to continue to have it as any concerns arise.I think the situation is actually less concentrated than it used to be when the SciPy steering committee was discussed. On that note, I think the SciPy steering committee needs serious revision as well.But, we've all just been getting along pretty well without too much formalism, so far, so perhaps that is enough for now. Thanks, -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 1:54 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: There is a mailing list for numfocus that you can sign up for if you would like to be part of those discussions. Let me know if you would like more information about that.John Hunter, Fernando Perez, me, Perry Greenfield, and Jarrod Millman are the initial board of the Foundation. But, I expect the Foundation directors to evolve over time. I should say that I have no knowledge of the events above other than from the mailing list (I say that only because some of you may know that I'm a friend and colleague of Jarrod and Fernando). Thanks for speaking up, Matthew. I knew that this was my first announcement of the Foundation to this list. Things are still just starting around that organization, and so there is plenty of time for input. This sort of thing has actually been under-way for a long time --- it just has not received much impetus until now for one reason or another. To be clear, there were several email posts about a Foundation to this list last fall and we took the discussion of the Foundation that has really been in the works for a couple of years (thanks to Jarrod), to a Google Group (very poorly) called Fastechula.There were 33 people who signed up for that list and discussions continued sporadically on that list away from this one. When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. The counter-argument usually goes 'members X, Y and Z are of impeccable integrity and would only do what is best for the public good'. And usually, members X, Y and Z are indeed of impeccable integrity. Nevertheless I'm sure I don't have to unpack the evidence that this approach frequently fails and can fail in a catastrophic way. Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined. Are you proposing that the Foundation oversee Numpy governance and direction? From your chosen members I'm guessing that the idea is for the foundation to think about broad strategy rather than - say - whether missing values should be encoded with masked arrays? I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris.Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight.Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this list whose opinions will be listened to and heard. In fact, I hope that many more people will come to the list and speak out as development increases. The point I was making was that the concentration of numpy development hours and talent in your company makes it urgent that the numpy governance is set out formally, that the interests of the company are made clear, and that the steering group can be assured of explicit and public independence from the interests of the company, if and when that becomes necessary. In the past, the numpy steering group has seemed a virtual organization, formed ad-hoc when needed, and with no formal governance. I'm saying that I firmly believe that has to change, to avoid the actual or perceived loss of community ownership. Best, Matthew I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be prominent on the numpy/scipy pages(maybe others?). It should also be in the list of mailing lists. A funding org much like the Linux Foundation would be great, and I am all for it. A separate governing committee is also important, and I think we had some very good ideas in previous discussions. I also have to agree with Matthew's concerns about the concentration of
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'? Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined. Are you proposing that the Foundation oversee Numpy governance and direction? From your chosen members I'm guessing that the idea is for the foundation to think about broad strategy rather than - say - whether missing values should be encoded with masked arrays? No, I am not proposing that. The Foundation will be focused on higher-level broad strategy sorts of things: mostly around how to raise money and how to direct that money to projects that have their own development cycles. I would think the Foundation would be interested in paying for things like issue trackers and continuous integration servers as well. It will leave NumPy management to this list and the people who have gathered around this watering hole. Obviously, there will be points of connection, but exactly how this will play-out depends on who shows up to both organizations. I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris. Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight. Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this list whose opinions will be listened to and heard. In fact, I hope that many more people will come to the list and speak out as development increases. The point I was making was that the concentration of numpy development hours and talent in your company makes it urgent that the numpy governance is set out formally, that the interests of the company are made clear, and that the steering group can be assured of explicit and public independence from the interests of the company, if and when that becomes necessary. In the past, the numpy steering group has seemed a virtual organization, formed ad-hoc when needed, and with no formal governance. I'm saying that I firmly believe that has to change, to avoid the actual or perceived loss of community ownership. I hear your point. Thank you for sharing it. Fortunately, we are having this discussion, and plan to continue to have it as any concerns arise. I think the situation is actually less concentrated than it used to be when the SciPy steering committee was discussed. On that note, I think the SciPy steering committee needs serious revision as well. But, we've all just been getting along pretty well without too much formalism, so far, so perhaps that is enough for now. But a) there have already been serious unresolved disagreements on this list (I note no resolution of the masks / NA debate) and b) the whole point is to set up structures that can deal with the problems before or as they arise. After the problem arises, it is too late. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be prominent on the numpy/scipy pages(maybe others?). It should also be in the list of mailing lists. I'm happy for all these discussions to be in the open. A funding org much like the Linux Foundation would be great, and I am all for it. A separate governing committee is also important, and I think we had some very good ideas in previous discussions. I also have to agree with Matthew's concerns about the concentration of developer resources at Continuum. I think that establishing a community-driven governance committee would be crucial in making sure that Continuum's (and Enthought's??) efforts go to serve both the community and the company's customers. I can try and re-assure you that all will be well, but I know that time is the only thing that will prove that out as each one will decide for themselves whether or not their input is valued and acted upon. To provide some perspective, for the next 5 months at least, Continuum will be providing 3.5 people at least 50% to the NumPy project plus dev ops help to get issue tracking and continuous build integration set up.After that we will have at least 1.5 people devoted full-time to the open-source NumPy project (more if possible).I would like this support to actually go through the Foundation (which already has a community governance and non-profit mission statement), but this takes some leg-work in getting the Foundation setup and organizing those contracts. But, that is my intent and what I am working to get in place eventually. Obviously, the fact that I am deeply involved in NumPy complicates the question of community governance for some people, but I hope you will trust that we are just trying to improve NumPy as we understand it. I remain interested in others views of what improving NumPy means. But, I do have a long list of ideas that I am anxious to get started on. Travis, in about a month, I will be starting up work at a company that has been users of the SciPy stack, but has not been active members of the community. I wish to change that. Will this Funding committee serve as a face for numpy for private companies? Absolutely. The Foundation web-site is getting set up right now. It will be an evolving thing, and your feedback about how the Foundation can help you get your company involved will be very helpful.I would like multiple companies to interact through the Foundation, and that is how I would ultimately like Continuum to interact with the community as well. The fact that Continuum employs people who work on NumPy should be no more concerning than the fact that Google employs people that work on Python, or that Enthought employs people who work on SciPy and NumPy. I recognize that my role in NumPy, the Foundation, and my company may be concerning for some. I firmly believe that NumPy is successful because of everybody who has participated. I am not interested in somehow changing that. I just want to do what I can to accelerate it. I look forward to working with you and your company in the Foundation. Best regards, -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 4:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'? By the way - I want to be clear - I am not suggesting that I should have been one of the people involved in these discussions. If you were choosing a small number of people to discuss this with, one of them should not be me. I am saying that, if I didn't know, it's reasonable to assume that very few people knew, who weren't being explicitly told, and that this means that the process was, effectively, closed. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'? I see it a different way.First, the Foundation is not a NumPy-governance thing. Certainly it could grow in that direction over time, but it isn't there now, nor is that its goal. Second, the Foundation is just getting started.It's only come together over the past couple of weeks.The fact that we are talking about it now, seems to me to indicate that it is quite open --- certainly closer to 'open' then you seem to imply. Also, the fact that there was a public mailing list for its discussion certainly sounds open to me (poorly advertised I will grant you). I tried to include as many people as I thought were interested by the responses to the initial emails on the list.I reached out to people that contacted me expressing their interest, and included them on the mailing list. I can accept that I made mistakes. I can guarantee that I will make more. Your feedback is appreciated and noted. The fact is that the Foundation is really a service organization that will require a lot of work to run and administer.It's effectiveness at fulfilling its mission will depend on how well it serves the group on this list, as well as the other groups that are working on Python for Science. I'm all for getting as many volunteers as we can get for the Foundation. I've just been trying to get things organized. Sometimes this works best by phone calls and direct contact, rather than mailing lists. For those interested. The Foundation mission is to: * Promote Open Source Software for Science * Fund Open Source Projects in Science (currently NumPy, SciPy, IPython, and Matplotlib are first-tier with a whole host of second-tier projects that could received funding) * through grants * through code bounties * through graduate-student scholarships * Sponsor sprints * Sponsor conferences * Sponsor student travel * etc., etc. Whether or not it can do any of those things depends on whether or not it can raise money from people and organizations that benefit from the Scientific Python Stack.All of this will be advertised more as the year progresses. Best regards, -Travis ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
On 2/14/12 7:17 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: * Fund Open Source Projects in Science (currently NumPy, SciPy, IPython, and Matplotlib are first-tier with a whole host of second-tier projects that could received funding) * through grants So, for example, would the Foundation apply to mentor Google Summer of Code projects? Jason ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
On Tuesday, February 14, 2012, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: I have to agree with Mathew here, to a point. There has been discussions of these groups before, but I don't recall any announcement of this group. Of course, now that it has been announced, maybe a link to it should be prominent on the numpy/scipy pages(maybe others?). It should also be in the list of mailing lists. I'm happy for all these discussions to be in the open. A funding org much like the Linux Foundation would be great, and I am all for it. A separate governing committee is also important, and I think we had some very good ideas in previous discussions. I also have to agree with Matthew's concerns about the concentration of developer resources at Continuum. I think that establishing a community-driven governance committee would be crucial in making sure that Continuum's (and Enthought's??) efforts go to serve both the community and the company's customers. I can try and re-assure you that all will be well, but I know that time is the only thing that will prove that out as each one will decide for themselves whether or not their input is valued and acted upon. To provide some perspective, for the next 5 months at least, Continuum will be providing 3.5 people at least 50% to the NumPy project plus dev ops help to get issue tracking and continuous build integration set up.After that we will have at least 1.5 people devoted full-time to the open-source NumPy project (more if possible).I would like this support to actually go through the Foundation (which already has a community governance and non-profit mission statement), but this takes some leg-work in getting the Foundation setup and organizing those contracts. But, that is my intent and what I am working to get in place eventually. That's good, and all of this is all in NumPy's benefit. I think that This is now the perfect time to establish some sort of governance, even if it is provincial. This has absolutely nothing against you (as you have done an excellent job so far), but now that the numpy community has grown this much and there are so many stake-holders, a formal governance will be essential for community cohesion. Obviously, the fact that I am deeply involved in NumPy complicates the question of community governance for some people, but I hope you will trust that we are just trying to improve NumPy as we understand it. I remain interested in others views of what improving NumPy means. But, I do have a long list of ideas that I am anxious to get started on. And I don't want the governance to hinder those ideas. I just see it as inevitable that there will be disagreements and having an agreed-upon structure by which to resolve them would be most beneficial. Also, such a committee could be used to solicit feedback on RFCs and NEPs. Travis, in about a month, I will be starting up work at a company that has been users of the SciPy stack, but has not been active members of the community. I wish to change that. Will this Funding committee serve as a face for numpy for private companies? Absolutely. The Foundation web-site is getting set up right now. It will be an evolving thing, and your feedback about how the Foundation can help you get your company involved will be very helpful.I would like multiple companies to interact through the Foundation, and that is how I would ultimately like Continuum to interact with the community as well. The fact that Continuum employs people who work on NumPy should be no more concerning than the fact that Google employs people that work on Python, or that Enthought employs people who work on SciPy and NumPy. I recognize that my role in NumPy, the Foundation, and my company may be concerning for some. I firmly believe that NumPy is successful because of everybody who has participated. I am not interested in somehow changing that. I just want to do what I can to accelerate it. I look forward to working with you and your company in the Foundation. Me too. Ben Root ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update - was: Updated differences between 1.5.1 to 1.6.1
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 6:43 PM, Matthew Brett matthew.br...@gmail.com wrote: Hi, On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant tra...@continuum.io wrote: When we selected the name NumFOCUS just a few weeks ago, we created the list for numfocus and then I signed everyone up for that list who was on the other one. I apologize if anyone felt left out. That is not my intention. My point is that there are two ways go to about this process, one is open and the other is closed. In the open version, someone proposes such a group to the mailing lists. They ask for expressions of interest. The discussion might then move to another mailing list that is publicly known and widely advertised. Members of the board are proposed in public. There might be some sort of formal or informal voting process. The reason to prefer this to the more informal private negotiations is that a) the community feels a greater ownership and control of the process and b) it is much harder to weaken or subvert an organization that explicitly does all its business in public. Your points are well taken. However, my point is that this has been discussed on an open mailing list. Things weren't *as* open as they could have been, perhaps, in terms of board selection. But, there was opportunity for people to provide input. I am on the numpy, scipy, matplotlib, ipython and cython mailing lists. Jarrod and Fernando are friends of mine. I've been obviously concerned about numpy governance for some time. I didn't know about this mailing list, had only a vague idea that some sort of foundation was being proposed and I had no idea at all that you'd selected a board. Would you say that was closer to 'open' or closer to 'closed'? Perceptions can be damaging. This is one of the big reasons for the organization of the Foundation -- to be a place separate from any commercial venture which can direct resources to a vision whose goal is more democratically determined. Are you proposing that the Foundation oversee Numpy governance and direction? From your chosen members I'm guessing that the idea is for the foundation to think about broad strategy rather than - say - whether missing values should be encoded with masked arrays? No, I am not proposing that. The Foundation will be focused on higher-level broad strategy sorts of things: mostly around how to raise money and how to direct that money to projects that have their own development cycles. I would think the Foundation would be interested in paying for things like issue trackers and continuous integration servers as well. It will leave NumPy management to this list and the people who have gathered around this watering hole. Obviously, there will be points of connection, but exactly how this will play-out depends on who shows up to both organizations. I think we do have a NumPy steering group if you want to call it that. It is currently me, Mark Wiebe, and Charles Harris. Rolf Gommers, Pauli Virtanen, David Cournapeau and Robert Kern also have opinions that carry significant weight. Are there other people that should be on this list? There are other people who also speak up on this list whose opinions will be listened to and heard. In fact, I hope that many more people will come to the list and speak out as development increases. The point I was making was that the concentration of numpy development hours and talent in your company makes it urgent that the numpy governance is set out formally, that the interests of the company are made clear, and that the steering group can be assured of explicit and public independence from the interests of the company, if and when that becomes necessary. In the past, the numpy steering group has seemed a virtual organization, formed ad-hoc when needed, and with no formal governance. I'm saying that I firmly believe that has to change, to avoid the actual or perceived loss of community ownership. I hear your point. Thank you for sharing it. Fortunately, we are having this discussion, and plan to continue to have it as any concerns arise. I think the situation is actually less concentrated than it used to be when the SciPy steering committee was discussed. On that note, I think the SciPy steering committee needs serious revision as well. But, we've all just been getting along pretty well without too much formalism, so far, so perhaps that is enough for now. But a) there have already been serious unresolved disagreements on this list (I note no resolution of the masks / NA debate) and b) the whole point is to set up structures that can deal with the problems before or as they arise. After the problem arises, it is too late. See you, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
