Hi, On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 1:35 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 9:39 AM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: >> >> I don't agree here. People work on open source to scratch an itch, so the >> process of making a contribution needs to be easy. Widespread veto makes it >> more difficult and instead of opening up the process, closes it down. There >> is less freedom, not more. That is one of the reasons that the smaller >> scikits attract people, they have more freedom to do what they want and >> fewer people to answer to. Scipy also has some of that advantage because >> there are a number of packages to choose from. The more strict the process >> and the more people to please, the less appealing the environment becomes. >> This can be observed in practice and the voluntary nature of FOSS amplifies >> the effect. >> >> >> It is true that it is easier to get developers to contribute to small >> projects where they can control exactly what happens and not have to appeal >> to a wider audience to get code changed and committed. This effect is >> well-illustrated by the emergence of scikits in the presence of SciPy. >> >> However, the idea that "people work on open source to scratch an itch" is >> incomplete. > > Do you agree that Numpy has not been very successful in recruiting and > maintaining new developers compared to its large user-base? > > Compared to - say - Sympy? > > Why do you think this is? > > Would you consider asking that question directly on list and asking > for the most honest possible answers?
Aha - I now realize that I was reading too quickly under the influence (again) of too much caffeine, and missed this part of Travis' email: > In this context, I'm especially interested > in making sure that it's not just the developers who get to decide what > happens to NumPy. Nathaniel has clarified very well what "veto-power" > really means. It's not absolute, it just means that users who write clear > arguments get "listened to" actively. It doesn't replace the need for > developers with wisdom and understanding of user-experiences, but "active > listening" is a useful skill that we could all improve on: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_listening A list full of bright, > interested, active listeners is the kind of culture we need on this list. > It's the kind of attitude we need from maintainers of NumPy. which mostly answers my worry, and I apologize for pushing on an open door. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion