Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

+1 from me. Cheers, Loïc ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

Thanks for putting the draft schedule together! Personally I will be there 3 days out of 5 and wouldn't want to miss the discussion on euclidean distance issues. Maybe we could adjust the schedule during the sprint (say on Tuesday) based on people's interest and availability? That might be easi

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

I don't think I'll be able to stay for the Friday 10am discussion, but have a PR open on "efficient grid search" so should probably be involved. Perhaps the fit_transform discussion can happen without you, Andy? On Wed, 20 Feb 2019 at 10:17, Andreas Mueller wrote: > I put a draft schedule here:

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

I put a draft schedule here: https://github.com/scikit-learn/scikit-learn/wiki/Upcoming-events#technical-discussions-schedule it's obviously somewhat opinionated ;) Happy to reprioritize. Basically I wouldn't like to miss any of the big API discussions because coming late to the party. The two

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

> Not sure if Guillaume had ideas about the schedule, given that he seems to be running the show? Mostly running behind the show ... For the moment, we only have a 30 minutes presentation of introduction planned on Monday. For the rest of the week, this is pretty much opened and I think that we c

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

+1 Arnaud > On 19 Feb 2019, at 21:48, Gilles Louppe wrote: > > +1 > > On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 20:40, Fabian Pedregosa wrote: >> >> +1 (not sure if my previous email went through) >> >> On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM Andreas Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On 2/19/19 10:55 AM, Paolo Los

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

Yeah, sounds good. I didn't want to unilaterally post a schedule, but doing some google form or similar seems a bit heavy-handed? Not sure if Guillaume had ideas about the schedule, given that he seems to be running the show? On 2/19/19 4:17 PM, Joel Nothman wrote: I don't think optics requir

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

I don't think optics requires a large meeting, just a few people. I'm happy with your proposal generally, Andy. Do we schedule specific topics at this point? ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/s

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

+1 On Tue, 19 Feb 2019 at 20:40, Fabian Pedregosa wrote: > > +1 (not sure if my previous email went through) > > On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM Andreas Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >> On 2/19/19 10:55 AM, Paolo Losi wrote: >> > +1 if my opinion matters >> > >> Thank you and it does :) >> >> >>

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

+1 (not sure if my previous email went through) On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 11:31 AM Andreas Mueller wrote: > > > On 2/19/19 10:55 AM, Paolo Losi wrote: > > +1 if my opinion matters > > > Thank you and it does :) > > > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > sci

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

> Does OPTICS require a meeting or is it clear what to do and the work > "just" needs to be done? Definitely needs (some) discussions. On Tue, Feb 19, 2019, 18:25 Andreas Mueller > > On 2/14/19 11:40 AM, Nicolas Hug wrote: > > > >> or we could go as far as to schedule meetings on the different t

Re: [scikit-learn] Sprint discussion points?

On 2/14/19 11:40 AM, Nicolas Hug wrote: or we could go as far as to schedule meetings on the different topics. Given the number of issues to discuss this is probably the best approach IMO If we want to schedule meetings we could do one of two things: have a scheduling meeting first th

Re: [scikit-learn] Reddit thread with complaints about scikit-learn

I agree with most of their points and have tried to prioritize some (and I think you were the victim of me trying to address some of these ;). The question about structuring the estimators is really something tricky. Maybe it's worth putting it on the roadmap to discuss this at some point? Gen

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

On 2/19/19 10:55 AM, Paolo Losi wrote: +1 if my opinion matters Thank you and it does :) ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

+1 if my opinion matters On Tue, Feb 19, 2019 at 4:39 PM Andreas Mueller wrote: > A good time to remind all core devs to vote (or abstain). > > +1 from me as well (as might be expected), I didn't want to put my vote in > my call for the vote. > > Participation is not super high (as might be expe

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

A good time to remind all core devs to vote (or abstain). +1 from me as well (as might be expected), I didn't want to put my vote in my call for the vote. Participation is not super high (as might be expected), 13 of the 49 core devs voted so far.. There are some people who have voiced opin

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

And a +1 from me as well Op di 19 feb. 2019 11:47 schreef Joel Nothman Uhh... I forgot to vote. +1 :) > > It seems there's some consensus. > ___ > scikit-learn mailing list > scikit-learn@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-lear

[scikit-learn] Reddit thread with complaints about scikit-learn

Hi everyone, I stumbled upon this reddit thread [1] where people point out what they dislike about the scikit-learn API. It's mostly about the lack of consistency for linear models. Just thought it'd be interesting to have some external critics. Best, Nicolas [1] https://www.reddit.com/r

Re: [scikit-learn] VOTE: scikit-learn governance document

Uhh... I forgot to vote. +1 :) It seems there's some consensus. ___ scikit-learn mailing list scikit-learn@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/scikit-learn