On Di, 2015-09-22 at 05:44 -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> > wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it > if we > could keep the discussion on a less visceral level? Nobody's > personal > integrity is being impugned, but it's the nature of this kind > of > governance discussion that we have to consider > unlikely-and-unpleasant > hypotheticals. It's like when you talk to a lawyer about a > contract or > a will or whatever: they'll make you think about all kinds of > horrible > possibilities, not because any of them are likely, but because > sooner > or later *something* will go wrong, and the point of having a > contract/will/governance document is to provide some framework > to > handle whichever unlikely edge case does arise. > > And the other purpose of this kind of framework is to avoid > the > *perception* (whether justified or not) of these kinds of > conflicts of > interest -- if not handled well then this can easily scare > away > volunteers, contributions from other companies, etc. Obviously > you > know Travis and Continuum well as an employee there, but to > most > people without that personal connection, Continuum is just a > large > corporate entity with unknown motives. Imagine if instead of > Continuum > we were talking about it was Google or RandomAggressiveStartup > -- some > company that you didn't have any personal connection or > insight into. > For someone in this position, it's not unreasonable to want > more of a > reassurance that things will work out then just being asked to > trust > that the CEO is personally committed to not being evil and > they can > trust him. > > > Anybody who comes to NumPy should know that I wrote it and then gave > it to the community -- creating an independent foundation at the same > time as I created a Company to create a division between them so that > my actions could be understood. I really don't know how to give more > reassurance. > > > I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my > intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my > resources, and my sleep to NumPy for many, many years. I guess if > your intent is to drive me away, then you are succeeding. > >
Frankly, I am bit surprised at how this is developing. Why?! Nobody, except being silly, really would doubt your intentions. That said, I will be honest with you. I do not feel I know you well enough (or the mode you operate) to for example accept you as BDFL of numpy [1] and I frankly do not think that -- just like anyone else -- you should have any special place in the governance document (which obviously does not mean you should be blocked from being on the steering council) [2]. I just think there should probably not be any specific name in the NumPy governance document at all. The thing is, NOBODY really seems suggests that [3]. I have dislike giving any special "power" to ANYONE. Frankly, I think if some people are nervous (not so much those active in the discussion), it is probably because they perceive that you have some direct power over numpy. As you have said, this is just not true. But *because* of the lack of a governance document, I would not be surprised if it *appears* to many like you could wield a lot of power if you so wished. Simply because few people really know how things are decided currently. And I think this wrong perception is what makes some nervous. If you say "maybe we should stop worrying about ABI" it may sound like "two years from now we will definitely break ABI", the curse being that it does not matter that you and those who know numpy's well know that it is just you stressing strongly that we should seriously discuss it. I have to admit, you sometimes sound a bit too definite in your suggestions given your former position ;). I hope I have not been rude here, Sebastian [1] I am sure you were *exactly* the right person to start numpy and be the de-facto BDFL then, but today this is not on the table anyway. [2] Also, lets be honest, you probably do have quite a bit of soft influence, just by knowing the community, being at the conferences, having NumFOCUS close by, etc. [3] I guess you have in some sense, but I now understand that as a suggestion to approach a different problem. And we can find another solution for that problem! > Also, in these messages you seem to be working from a > framework where > people working in good faith will always agree, and so any > suggestion > of a possible conflict of interest can only arise through bad > faith. > But this isn't true. Is it really so difficult to imagine > that, say, > Continuum and Enthought might at some point have conflicting > needs for > numpy, or for Continuum's vision of the future of numpy could > be > less-than-perfectly-representative with every bit of numpy's > entire > giant userbase? > > > Of course not, but this is no different than anyone else and a company > should not be singled out. All you are doing is forcing any > contribution to be either only from a non-profit or have individuals > hide their actual allegiances. > > Continuum is a company that has in the past submitted > rather obscure patches to numpy that AFAICT are used > exclusively by a > particular contracting customer (e.g. [1]), and that is > currently > investing a substantial multiple of numpy's development budget > on > building a direct competitor to numpy. > > > Good grief! These comments are so much bunk that I have to call you > on it emphatically. You claim below that you are unconcerned but yet > you insinuate some crazy, ulterior motivations for Continuum actually > helping people upgrade their NumPy installation that broke their old > code because of changes to NumPy. This kind of comment really > upsets me. You dismiss real things and real problems that happen and > brush it away because it's *commercial*. > > > That patch you reference was actually an attempt to fix a problem that > the community pushed on the world --- therefore breaking people's code > (but good thing the ABI didn't change...). We were up front about it > and worked with the community to get a change into NumPy to > accommodate a user of the tool. It was hard work to figure out how to > do that. To have you use that as some kind of argument against > Continuum is not only unfair, it is exactly the kind of > mis-characterization and mis-interpretation of events that I refer to > in other posts. > > > And to say that we are investing a substantial multiple of Numpy's > development budget in a competitor is also incorrect. Continuum > invests in competent people who want to do interesting things. We > don't have a rule that says things are "off-limits" including NumPy. > If competent people feel like an alternative to NumPy is a good idea, > then a certain amount of exploration in that direction is allowed. > DyND does not have to be a competitor to NumPy. It might compete > with *your* vision of NumPy, but it doesn't have to compete with > NumPy. > > > To emphasize: I personally am not concerned by these facts -- > we did > merge that patch I linked, and there's no animosity between > the numpy > and dynd teams -- but reasonable people could reasonably be > concerned > that tricky situations might emerge in the future, and I've > talked to > plenty of people who are nervous about Continuum's influence > in > general. > > > Who are these people? How about they come forward and express what > it is they are actually nervous about. Really? nervous? What kind > of "tricky" situations are we talking about. Can't you see that this > sounds as odd to me as me telling you that I'm concerned about BIDS > influence? What about Dato, Databricks, Enthought, or Cloudera > influence? What does this even mean? Is this just Matthew and > Stefan or are there others as well with these feelings? These are > the only actual people who have expressed in public what might be > considered concern that I am aware of. I think this kind of > anti-commercial commentary has no place in a community that also > includes people that work at companies. > > > I can't see how we can agree to *any* governance document with this > kind of FUD being spread around. > > And with my numpy developer hat on, I don't even care which > "side" is right, that's irrelevant to me, because my concern > is with > providing a space where both "sides" feel comfortable working > together. This is why it's crucial that numpy-the-project be > clearly > distinguishable as an independent entity that is beholden only > to its > own community: it's *exactly because* we *value* the > contribution of > companies like Continuum, and want to be able to freely foster > those > relationships without creating suspicion and bad blood. > > > Of course we agree on this. I have no idea why anyone thinks we > don't? That's the one thing we *do* agree on. That NumPy is an > independent project which can be influenced by anyone in the community > and should be developed based on technical discussions and not fear of > hob-goblins and people that also work at companies that may benefit > from the work that goes on here (there is a large list in this camp). > I am deeply saddened by the insinuation and the implication of what > these threads are telling me about how little my efforts have been > valued by people I care about. > > Also to emphasize: none of this means that Travis can't be on > the > steering council -- I think that's a more complex issue that > I'll > address separately. All I'm saying is that pretending that you > aren't > going to reassure people by pretending this elephant isn't in > the > room, or by taking a reasonable set of concerns and > aggressively > turning them into a referendum on individual people's > integrity. > > > We should call out the elephant in the room. But, I think we should > understand who and what the elephant is. Perhaps there are too many > off-list and back-channel conversations happening at BIDS and > elsewhere that are serving to bias people against facts. Facts that > otherwise would show that I and Continuum have always just been trying > to ensure the success of NumPy as an independent project that is fully > supported, backward compatible, maintained, available to the world in > easy to install ways, and documented. > > > > Finally, can I point out... anyone who has some wariness > around the > possible influence of financial interests on the community > (whether > justified or not!) is in particular not going to be reassured > if you > keep aggressively attempting to shut down any perceived > criticism of > *your own employer*. I know that your paycheck is not > dictating your > opinions, and probably the hypothetical people I'm talking > about are > being totally unfair to you for even considering such a thing, > but... > strictly as a matter of practical rhetoric, I don't think this > is the > most effective way to accomplish your goals. > > > > I agree with this. I certainly did not encourage Bryan. He was > acting out of his own sense of injustice. > > > But, I would add, that your insinuation and mis-characterization of my > activities at Continuum and potentially elsewhere are unfair and > incorrect and also not effective at getting governance documents > approved and ratified. I will get over feeling offended and work to > get over my frustration at academics for thrusting this anti-company > and potentially anti-Travis rhetoric on the community. > > > But, if you indeed have such hard feelings, then please air all of > them so we can hopefully just get past this. > > > > -n > > [1] https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/359 > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 11:28 PM, Bryan Van de Ven > <bry...@continuum.io> wrote: > > > >> I don't know how productive it is to dream up examples, but > it's not > > > > Well, agreed, to be honest. > > > >> very hard to do. Currently, e.g., the community is not > ready to adopt > >> numba as part of the ufunc core. But it's been stated by > some that, > > > > Who are you speaking for? The entire community? Under what > mandate? > > > >> with so many people running Conda, breaking the ABI is of > little > >> consequence. And then it wouldn't be much of a leap to > think that numba > >> is an acceptable dependency. > > > > The current somewhat concrete proposal I am aware of > involves funding cleaning up dtypes. Is there another > concrete, credible proposal to make Numba a dependency of > NumPy that you can refer to? If not, why are we mired in > hypotheticals? > > > >> There's a broad range of Continuum projects that intersect > with what > >> NumPy does: numba, DyND, dask and Odo to name a few. > Integrating them > >> into NumPy may make a lot more sense for someone from > Continuum than for > >> other members of the community. > > > > May? Can you elaborate? More speculation. My own position is > that these projects want to integrate with NumPy, not the > converse. Regardless of my opinion, can you actually make any > specific arguements, one way or the otehr? What if if some > integrations actually make more sense for the community? Is > this simply a dogmatic ideological position that anything > whatsoever that benefits both NumPy and Continuum > simultaneously is bad, on principle? That's fine, as such, but > let's make that position explicit if that's all it is. > > > > Bryan > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > > -- > Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > > > -- > > Travis Oliphant > Co-founder and CEO > > > > > > @teoliphant > 512-222-5440 > http://www.continuum.io > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
