Hi, On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 11:24 AM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 1:03 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 8:04 AM, Lluís <xscr...@gmx.net> wrote: >> > Matthew Brett writes: >> >> I'm afraid I find this whole thread very unpleasant. >> > >> >> I have the odd impression of being back at high school. Some of the >> >> big kids are pushing me around and then the other kids join in. >> > >> >> It didn't have to be this way. >> > >> >> Someone could have replied like this to Nathaniel: >> > >> >> "Oh - yes - I'm sorry - we actually had the discussion on the pull >> >> request. Looking back, I see that we didn't flag this up on the >> >> mailing list and maybe we should have. Thanks for pointing that out. >> >> Maybe we could start another discussion of the API in view of the >> >> changes that have gone in". >> > >> >> But that didn't happen. >> > >> > Well, I really thought that all the interested parties would take a look >> > at [1]. >> > >> > While it's true that the pull requests are not obvious if you're not >> > using the >> > functionalities of the github web (or unless announced in this list), I >> > think >> > that Mark's announcement was precisely directed at having a new round of >> > discussions after having some code to play around with and see how >> > intuitive or >> > counter-intuitive the implemented concepts could be. >> >> I just wanted to be clear what I meant. >> >> The key point is not whether or not the pull-request or request for >> testing was in fact the right place for the discussion that Travis >> suggested. I guess you can argue that either way. I'd say no, but >> I can see how you would disagree on that. >> > > This is getting very meta... a disagreement about the disagreement.
Yes, the important point is a social one. The other points are details. >> The key point is - how much do we value constructive disagreement? >> > > Personally, I value it very much. Well - I think everyone believes that that they value constructive discussion, but the question is, what happens when people really disagree? > My impression of the discussion we all > had at the beginning was that the needs of the two distinct communities > (R-users and masked array users) were both heard and largely addressed. > Aspects of both approaches were used, and the final result is, IMHO, > inspired and elegant. Is it perfect? No. Are there ways to improve it? > Absolutely, and I fully expect that to happen. To be clear once more, I personally feel we don't need to discuss: 1) Whether Mark did a good job on the code (I have high bias to imagine so). 2) Whether something along these lines would be good to have in numpy >> If we do value constructive disagreement then we'll go out of our way >> to talk through the points of contention, and make sure that the >> people who disagree, especially the minority, feel that they have been >> fully heard. >> >> If we don't value constructive disagreement then we'll let the other >> side know that further disagreement will be taken as a sign of bad >> faith. >> >> Now - what do you see here? I see the second and that worries me. >> > > It is disappointing that you choose not to participate in the thread linked > above or in the pull request itself. If I remember correctly, you were > working on finishing up your dissertation, so I fully understand the time > constraints involved there. However, the pull request and the email > notification is the de facto method of staging and discussing changes in any > development project. No objections were raised in that pull request, so it > went in after some time passed. To hold off the merge, all one would need > to do is fire off a quick comment requesting a delay to have a chance to > review the pull request. I think the pull-request was not the right vehicle for the discussion, you think it was, that's fine, I don't think we need to rehearse that. My question (if you are answering my question) is: if you put yourself in my or Nathaniel's shoes, would you feel that you had been warmly encouraged to express disagreement, or would you feel something else. > Luckily, git is a VCS, so we are fully capable of reverting any necessary > changes if warranted. If you have any concerns or suggestions for changes > in the current implementation, feel free to raise them and open additional > pull requests. There is no "ganging up" here or any other subterfuge. Tell > us exactly what are your issues with the current setup, provide example code > demonstrating the issues, and we can certainly discuss ways to improve this. Has the situation changed since the counter-NEP that Nathaniel and I wrote up? > Remember, we *all* have a common agreement here. NumPy needs better support > for missing data (in whatever form). Let's work from that assumption and > make NumPy a better library to use for everybody! I remember walking past a church in a small town in the California desert. It had a sign outside saying 'People who are busy rowing do not have time to rock the boat'. This seemed to me a total failure to understand the New Testament, but also a recipe for organizational disaster. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion