I don't think I've contributed code to NumPy itself, but as someone involved in the scientific python ecosystem for a while, I can't see why people would consider Continuum less of a legitimate participant or community member than individual contributors, especially if the person behind it has had the opportunity to control things previously and instead passed NumPy onto the community. I'd be wary of commercial interests dominating the agenda, but that's different from them having a proportionate (in this case minor) say when they have something to offer. And that's all true *even if* Travis were heavily biased to his own commercial ends, which is not consistent with my understanding of his wider efforts and sacrifices over most of a decade that I've been paying attention.
Remember this is free/open source software and if enough people don't like the committee at some point, the project can be forked as an option of last resort. Nothing is set in stone, nor code lost. Just saying (I probably won't reply to any criticism or corrections, to avoid adding peripheral noise/heat to the thread). Cheers, James (from, but not on behalf of, a non-profit research facility). _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
