On Saturday, October 29, 2011, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Who is counted in building a consensus? I tend to pay attention to those who have made consistent contributions over the years, reviewed code, fixed bugs, and have generally been active in numpy development. In any group participation is important, people who just walk in the door and demand things be done their way aren't going to get a lot of respect. I'll happily listen to politely expressed feedback, especially if the feedback comes from someone who shows up to work, but that hasn't been my impression of the disagreements in this case. Heck, Nathaniel wasn't even tracking the Numpy pull requests or Mark's repository. That doesn't spell "participant" in my dictionary. > > Chuck >
This is a very good point, but I would highly caution against alienating anybody here. Frankly, I am surprised how much my opinion has been taken here given the very little numpy code I have submitted (I think maybe two or three patches). The Numpy community is far more than just those who use the core library. There is pandas, bottleneck, mpl, the scikits, and much more. Numpy would be nearly useless without them, and certainly vice versa. We are all indebted to each other for our works. We must never lose that perspective. We all seem to have a different set of assumptions of how development should work. Each project follows its own workflow. Numpy should be free to adopt their own procedures, and we are free to discuss them. I do agree with chuck that he shouldn't have to make a written invitation to each and every person to review each pull. However, maybe some work can be done to bring the pull request and issues discussion down to the mailing list. I would like to do something similar with mpl. As for voting rights, let's make that a separate discussion. Ben Root
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
