On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,

On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 9:32 PM, Pearu Peterson
<pearu.peterson@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Would it be possible to setup a signing system where anyone who would like
> to support Clint could sign and advertise the system on relevant mailing
> lists?
> This would provide larger body of supporters for this letter and perhaps
> will have greater impact to whom the letter will be
> addressed. Personally, I would be happy to sign to such a letter.
>
> On the letter: the letter should also mention scipy community as they
> benefit
> most from the ATLAS speed.

Maybe it would be best phrased then as 'numpy and scipy developers'
instead of the steering group?

I'm not sure how this kind of thing works for tenure letters, I would
guess that if there are a very large number of signatures it might be
difficult to see who is being represented...  I'm open to suggestions.
 I can also ask Clint.

I've added you as an editor - would you consider adding your name at
the end, and maybe something about scipy? - you know the scipy blas /
lapack stuff much better than I do.

Done for adding the name. The document is currently numpy oriented and I am not sure where to enter with scipy..

Technical summary of the situation with scipy blas/lapack stuff:
The main difference in between numpy and scipy lapack-wise is that numpy has a lite C version of few lapack routines in case the lapack libraries are not available for building it while for scipy the lapack libraries are prerequisites as scipy provides interfaces to a much larger number of lapack routines. Having ATLAS in addition would greatly increase the performance of these routines.

Pearu