Hi, On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:05 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sat, Oct 29, 2011 at 1:41 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: >> >> >> 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. >> > > I was quite impressed by your comments on Mark's work, I thought they were > excellent. It doesn't really take much to make an impact in a small > community overburdened by work. > >> >> 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. >> > > With such a small community, I'd rather avoid the whole voting thing if > possible.
But, if there is one thing worse than voting, it is implicit voting. Implicit voting is where you ignore people who you don't think should have a voice. Unless I'm mistaken, that's what you are suggesting should be the norm. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
