On Do, 2015-08-27 at 12:34 -0700, Stefan van der Walt wrote:
On 2015-08-27 11:06:10, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
So, in the spirit of fruitful discussion, can I ask what y'all consider to be the current problems with working on numpy (other than the technical ones). What is numpy doing well, and what is it doing badly? What risks do we have to plan for in the future?
It looks to me as though the team is doing an excellent job of maintaining NumPy. The growth of the project has stagnated somewhat for numerous reasons---and a lack of ideas on the table is not one of them, rather whether / how to take them forward.
The question, and I think what you also highlighted in the earlier part of this discussion, is: how to decide on which vision to adopt, and who takes responsibility for making that happen?
Are the two models proposed thus far so different, or can they be merged in a way that makes sense? E.g., can we work as a community to rally behind a vision as set out by one person, and then repeat that process to focus on another a year later? Think of it as the iterative development equivalent of governance.
This may just be another way of phrasing a precedency, but with a strong emphasis on its temporary nature, as well as a focus on a group-decided outcome. Alternatively, see it as a community governance model with a strong emphasis on responsibility.
Agreed. Are not PEP's/NEP's just that (and could possibly be formalized more, not sure how much they are in the current proposal) in some sense? Since they have a sponsor/author who can be said to be assigned to it/responsible once accepted. I will add one more thing which I think is important: The governance has to be create as little hassle as possible and it should be simple/short enough to quickly understand. - Sebastian
Stéfan _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion