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