[AstroPy] POLL: vision for a common Astronomy package

Erik Tollerud erik.tollerud at gmail.com
Thu Jun 30 20:02:31 EDT 2011

Just to quickly address the process here:  The idea was that the
vision document in particular needed to be drafted with a somewhat
coherent vision, so we wanted to offer it for a vote quickly so as to
get a sense as to whether everyone was on the same page here (so far
at least, in seems most people are, given the votes and clarifications

For future documents such as coding style and other planning
documents, we will likely be issuing drafts and solicit
comments/suggestions before putting a modified version to a vote.  In
this particular case we felt that speed and consistency of vision
would help the process proceed more quickly and stay organized,
especially given that most of the details in the document are still
open for change if it's desired.

On the topic of GUIs, the thought was that it would be difficult to
come to a consensus given how many different toolkits are in use and
the fact that the learning curve is a fair bit steeper... so it would
be great to settle on one, but it might alienate a fair number of
otherwise interested developers, or reduce the knowledge base so much
that we couldn't get off the ground for GUIs.  That said, I personally
favor TraitsUI and the related Enthought tools, but I know there are
other opinions...

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 2:32 AM, Stefan Czesla
<stefan.czesla at hs.uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
> Dear all,
> first I would like to thank Tom, Perry, and Eric for their work. I agree
> with Marshall, a binary vote
> may be little restrictive to vote on such a complex issue. What irritated me
> a little more, however,
> is that the vision was not put up for discussion before the community was
> asked to vote on it. At
> least this has not been stated explicitly and the vision does not contain a
> reference to a place (maybe
> this list) were the comments can be made. Even though nobody stops anybody
> from making
> any comments, this does not mean that they will be considered at any time
> (there hardly would be time
> until the vote closes).
> I do not think that this is all stuff, which can be done later.
> So it is the presentation (not necessarily the vision), which I find a
> little irritating. As we are in
> a learning process, it is necessary to put this on the table right now; so
> please take this as
> constructive criticism and not complaining.
> Cheers,
> Stefan
>> Hi Marshall,
>> Please do feel free to express any opinions you have in this thread.
>> The thinking behind the binary vote is that we just want something we
>> can start from. But once things start gaining momentum, there is no
>> reason why we couldn't adopt a PEP-like process to propose amendments
>> to the existing vision/plan :-)
>> Cheers,
>> Tom
>> On 27 June 2011 22:47, Marshall Perrin<mperrin at stsci.edu>  wrote:
>>> Structuring this as a binary yes/no vote seems a little restrictive to
>>> me. Is there any room for discussion or comments prior to this vote? I would
>>> have expected something a little more like Python's PEP workflow
>>> (http://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0001/#pep-work-flow) in which community
>>> feedback is applied to a document developed by one or more leaders.
>>> (Nothing in this email should be taken to imply approval or lack thereof
>>> of anything in the draft text. I'm more just stating my own opinion that
>>> binary votes are not necessarily the best decision making process for
>>> complex issues, where 'yes, but' or 'yes and also' or 'no unless' can at
>>> times be very valuable in drawing on the community's expertise...)
>>>  - Marshall
>>> ________________________________________
>>> From: astropy-bounces at scipy.org [astropy-bounces at scipy.org] on behalf of
>>> Thomas Robitaille [thomas.robitaille at gmail.com]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 4:22 PM
>>> To: astropy at scipy.org
>>> Subject: Re: [AstroPy] POLL: vision for a common Astronomy package
>>> Just a quick note to avoid any confusion - the two polls are
>>> independent, so you will need to click 'vote' for each one in turn.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tom
>>> On 27 June 2011 22:16, Thomas Robitaille<thomas.robitaille at gmail.com>
>>>  wrote:
>>>> Hi everyone,
>>>> In the last week, Erik, Perry, and myself have been discussing how
>>>> best to coordinate the development of the common Python Astronomy
>>>> package. We have now converged on a common vision, and would now like
>>>> to know whether you would be happy with it too. The vision and a
>>>> poll are available at the following pages:
>>>> vision: http://astropy.wikispaces.com/vision
>>>> poll: http://astropy.wikispaces.com/vision-polls
>>>> In addition, 'astropy' has been suggested by several people as a name
>>>> for this common package, so rather than creating a multi-option poll,
>>>> we've created a simple yes/no poll to find out whether you would agree
>>>> with this name. The idea is to have a name that does not endorse any
>>>> specific existing project, is in line with numpy/scipy, and reflects
>>>> its initial development via this mailing list. The poll is located at
>>>> the same URL as before.
>>>> The polls will be open unti Friday 1st July at 9pm EST.
>>>> Thanks!
>>>> Thomas
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AstroPy mailing list
>>> AstroPy at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> AstroPy mailing list
>>> AstroPy at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
>> _______________________________________________
>> AstroPy mailing list
>> AstroPy at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy
> _______________________________________________
> AstroPy mailing list
> AstroPy at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/astropy

Erik Tollerud

More information about the AstroPy mailing list