Hi John, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:20 PM, John Hunter <jdh2...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 7:26 PM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> On 2/16/2012 7:22 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> > This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. >> >> I disagree. >> Failure to reach consensus does not imply lack of striving. >> > > Hey Alan, thanks for your thoughtful and nuanced views. I agree with > everything you've said, but have a few additional points.
I thought I'd looked deep in my heart and failed to find paranoia about corporate involvement in numpy. I am happy that Travis formed Continuum and look forward to the progress we can expect for numpy. I don't think the conversation was much about 'democracy'. As far as I was concerned, anything on the range of "no change but at least being specific" to "full veto power from mailing list members" was up for discussion and anything in between. I wish we had not had to deal with the various red herrings here, such as whether Continuum is good or bad, whether Travis has been given adequate credit, or whether companies are bad for software. But, we did. It's fine. Argument over now. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
