On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:15 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>wrote:
Hi,
Sorry - I moved this thread over because it seemed to be of general importance - both for scipy.stats but also for our working process. I really think it's a discussion we need to have in public - either here on the list - or in a public meeting in scipy.
On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 7:16 AM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
Since Travis seems to want to take back control of scipy.stats, I am considering my role as inofficial maintainer as ended.
I would have appreciated his help almost 3 years ago, when I started to learn numpy, scipy, and started to submit patches for scipy.stats.distributions.
But by now, I have pretty strong opinions about statistics in python, after almost three years, I'm a bit tired of cleaning up the mess of others (and want to clean up my own mess), and there are obviously big philosophical differences for the development process between me and Travis (no discussion, no review, no tests). http://projects.scipy.org/scipy/log/trunk/scipy/stats/tests
Returning to Josef's frustration. It seems to me there is a general thirst for a more formal understanding of code ownership, and the process for discussion and review of changes.
I think Josef's frustration is very important; my impression is that Josef's work on scipy.stats has been a very large step forward for a module that previously was seriously broken and not properly tested.
It's obvious I think that Josef is the de-facto maintainer of scipy.stats, and it's obvious that, as maintainer, he should first - be asked about changes, and second - should have the right of review before acceptance.
Any maintainer would expect this, and any maintainer is going to get annoyed if those accepted rules of behavior are not observed.
Travis - hoping you are reading this thread - does that also seem reasonable to you? What do you think would be the best way of proceeding?
Best,
Matthew _______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
[Quoted from the original thread] On Mon, May 31, 2010 at 2:59 PM, David Goldsmith <d.l.goldsmith@gmail.com>wrote:
I don't think I'm being unjustly personal: I think if certain parties (is that unpersonal enough?) flaunt community standards of practice, then they should be called out on it - what other teeth does a policy in this sort of community have? But if I'm mistaken about this Policy not yet having been promulgated/accepted, i.e., if there is no infraction on account of a technicality, then please, say so: I'll happily retract my accusation and apologize.
But that doesn't give you free rein to indulge in psychoanalysis as to motives and such.
I'm sure you mean (for it's the nature of this list, is it not, that we all have free rein to be as diplomatic, or not, as we wish) something along the lines of: if you tone it down a bit and make it less personal, i.e., be a bit more 'diplomatic,' then people are more likely to take you seriously. In fact, I feel I am being diplomatic by refraining from stating what I think should really be done; you yourself in your first reply to the original post intimated that person(s) who shall (now) remain nameless (but whom it was fine for you to name when the thread began) have *repeatedly* flaunted the standards in this manner, and yet we're asked to remain patient and continue to try to "housebreak" these infractor(s) (your metaphor - who's being disrespectful there, comparing the infractor(s) to puppies). I've said my piece, I'll shut up now. DG