Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Fernando, I am happy that you decided to chime in here. This thread derailed in a bad way and I hope that your wise words will help to redress the situation. In fact, I would like to propose you having part of a future steering committee of NumPy. I know that you may never have been implied

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed Sep 23 12:39:59 2015 GMT+0200, Francesc Alted wrote: > Hi Fernando, > > I am happy that you decided to chime in here. This thread derailed in a > bad way and I hope that your wise words will help to redress the situation. > > In fact, I would like to propose you having part of a future

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:55 AM, Sebastian Berg wrote: > Is it ok if I get a bit angry soon ;)? Don't worry, Sebastian :) I appreciate Francesc's kind words, but I have no intention of imposing my presence anywhere, it's not like I'm looking for extra work at this

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> But discussing who is great community leader, etc. is frankly not obvious to > me related to numpy governance. Thank you Sebastian. Could we please try to get back to the governance issues, without naming names? There are some specific questions on the table that need to get hashed out.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 9:47 AM, Chris Barker - NOAA Federal < chris.bar...@noaa.gov> wrote: > > But discussing who is great community leader, etc. is frankly not > obvious to me related to numpy governance. > > Thank you Sebastian. > > Could we please try to get back to the governance issues,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:02 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: > Hi all, > > I would like to pitch in here, I am sorry that I didn't have the time > before... > > First, I want to disclose that recently Continuum made a research gift to > the Jupyter project; we were just now

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi all, I would like to pitch in here, I am sorry that I didn't have the time before... First, I want to disclose that recently Continuum made a research gift to the Jupyter project; we were just now writing up a blog post to acknowledge this, but in light of this discussion, I feel that I

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 2015-09-23 13:36:35, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > >> I see a severe reaction to perceived 'suspicion and innuendo', but I >> see no 'suspicion and innuendo'. Unless you mean that any

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Perhaps some kind of group bonding activity, such as working on a shared > project, would help? ;) > Indeed, there's a bunch of fresh 2x4s, screws and bolts with your name on them ;) Cheers, f -- Fernando

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> > > One last time, it was *not* a personal reference to you: the only reason I > mentioned your names was because of the Berkeley clarification regarding > BIDS that I asked of Travis, that's all. If that comment hadn't been made, > I would not have made any mention whatsoever of anyone in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:32 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Fernando Perez > wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Matthew Brett > > > wrote: > >> > >> I see a severe reaction

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:08 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> Did you see any remark made by me or Stefan or anyone else that could >> reasonably be described as bizarre, surprising or

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi, On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:36 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:57 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: >> >> I see a severe reaction to perceived 'suspicion and innuendo', but I >> see no 'suspicion and innuendo'. Unless you mean

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:31 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > b) a suggestion that we discuss it further personally, taking advantage > of > > the fact that we happen to be physically close. > > Sure, I'm happy to discuss the personal side of this offline. > Hey! I want

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:32 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Did you see any remark made by me or Stefan or anyone else that could > reasonably be described as bizarre, surprising or disheartening? > As I said already, I wasn't referring to you personally, but to the tone of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi, On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 1:02 AM, Fernando Perez wrote: [snip] > 1. I hope the discussion can move past the suspicion and innuendo about > Continuum and Travis I'm glad the discussion has become a little more calm now, but I find it difficult not to be annoyed by this

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 12:18 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I accept that criticism and apologize for doing that. My *human* side > was coming out, and I was not being fair. In my head, though I was > also trying to illustrate how some seemed to be doing the same thing

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:19 PM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > This was my fault for not being more careful in my words. I felt > multiple things when I wrote my emails that led to incorrectly chosen words > --- but mostly I was feeling unappreciated, attacked, and accused.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:37 PM, Fernando Perez wrote: > > Glad to see the other thread proceeding further, let's let this one die as > peacefully as it can... > > This Monty Python sketch seems relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grbSQ6O6kbs (hope everyone's in

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads I've ever read in my life. Somehow companies are lurking around like the boogeyman and academics are completely free of ulterior motives and conflicts of interest? This is just asinine--we're all people and have various motivations. (Having just

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi, On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: >> I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my >> intentions when I've done nothing but give away my

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

To expand on Ryan's point a bit about recusal... this is why we have a general policy against self-merging and why peer review is so valuable. A ban on self-merging is much like recusal, and I think it is a fantastic policy. As for a BDFL, I used to like that idea having seen it work well for

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Thank you for posting that draft as it is a useful comparison to borrow from. I think Nathaniel's original document is a great start. Perhaps some tweaks along the lines of what you and Matt have suggested could also be useful. I agree that my proposal is mostly about altering the governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba as > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could happen someday just as Cython is > now being adopted but was proposed 8 years ago that it "could

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to the > NumPy community? That it be faster? Simpler to maintain? Easier to > extend?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Brian On 2015-09-21 23:28:48, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: >> 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?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 9:20 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the > spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I > completely understand that the Steering Council is not to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi All, I've been reading this thread with amazement and a bit of worry. It seems Nathaniel's proposal is clearly an improvement, even if it is not perfect. But it is in the end for a project where, at least as seen from the outside, the main challenge is not in governance, but rather in having

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 8:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest. Of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > > > I guess we've gone off the rails pretty far at this point, so let me at > least take a step back, and make sure that you know that: > > - I have never doubted that your intensions for NumPy are anything but >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I am not upset nor was I ever upset about discussing the possibility of conflict of interest. Of course it can be discussed --- but it should be discussed directly about specific things --- and as others have said it is generally easily handled when it actually could arise. The key is to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 10:15 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > >> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: >> There is ample history of such things happening in OSS history, so I think >> that's a fair concern, even if that has not happened for

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:16 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-21 23:29:12, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > 1) nobody believes that the community should be forced to adopt numba > as > > part of ufunc core yet --- but this could

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> I have no expectation that continuum will follow any of these paths, > and in most cases am not even sure what that would mean, BUT just > because I think it is useful to have a wide variety of concrete > examples to draw on -- data is good! -- there actually are *lots* of > examples of

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

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.

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything *except* resolve disputes that cannot be resolved without one. Like you, I would

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> > > > > 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

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being > usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man by > indicating otherwise.I don't believe a small council should do anything >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:07 AM, Stefan van der Walt wrote: > On 2015-09-21 22:15:55, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > Beyond that, what (even in a broad sense) is an example of a goal that > > "Continuum might need" that would conceivably do detriment to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> 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?

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > The FUD I'm talking about is the anti-company FUD that has influenced > discussions in the past.I really hope that we can move past this. > I have mostly stayed out of the governance discussion, in deference to

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith 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 >

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Di, 2015-09-22 at 05:44 -0500, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith > wrote: > Hi Bryan, > > I understand where you're coming from, but I'd appreciate it > if we > could keep the discussion on a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote: > On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Travis Oliphant > wrote: > >> I actually do agree with your view of the steering council as being >> usually not really being needed.You are creating a straw-man

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 20/09/15 20:20, Travis Oliphant wrote: 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, and pauli. 3 - add me as a permanent member of the steering council. I have stayed out of this governance

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I don’t think anyone has invested as much personal time and resources (e.g., money) towards supporting numpy, and not just in creating it but through efforts

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 22/09/15 14:31, Perry Greenfield wrote: I’ve also stayed out of this until now. I’m surprised and disheartened at the amount of suspicion and distrust directed towards Travis. I have no idea where this distrust comes from. Nobody has invested so much of their time in NumPy. Without

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On 2015-09-20 11:20:28, Travis Oliphant wrote: > I would recommend three possible adjustments to the steering council > concept. > > 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris > > 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel,

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 8:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi Travis, and all, > > You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes > final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions > unstuck, as you said. > > I agree with Chris, that at

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:42 PM, David Cournapeau wrote: > > > > On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 6:33 PM, Bryan Van de Ven wrote: > > > On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > > > The second problem is that you have a

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

> On Sep 21, 2015, at 9:24 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > > The second problem is that you have a potential conflict of interest, > in that it is possible for the needs of Continuum to conflict with the > needs of numpy. I believe, from previous emails on this list, that

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Hi Travis, and all, You might have seen I was advocating for having someone who takes final responsibility for the project, partly to get discussions unstuck, as you said. I agree with Chris, that at this stage, there is no-one who could be Benevolent Dictator for the project. It seems to me

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane.I hope the spirit of them was caught correctly.I also want to re-emphasize that I completely understand that the Steering Council is not to be making decisions that often and almost all activity will be similar to it is now ---

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Mo, 2015-09-21 at 11:32 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the > > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is > > very large and I don't agree with

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On Sun, Sep 20, 2015 at 11:20 AM, Travis Oliphant wrote: > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the entire > governance document, I realized that the steering council is very large > How large are we talking? I think there were 8 people named --

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote: > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is > very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is > chosen. > Hmmm, well I never

[Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is chosen. A one year time frame is pretty short on the context of a two decades old project and I