[Numpy-discussion] NEPaNEP lessons - was: alterNEP

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

These are some notes about the masking NEP discussion, in the hope
that they will be useful for thinking about the NEP and other
discussions in the future.

This is not a discussion about the masking API.   I'm trying not to
mix the mask discussion with the discussion-about-the-mask-discussion.

Maybe some

Points of agreement
===============

1) Blame the process not the people
2) It is useful to go back over controversial incidents to see how the
current process works and how it can be improved.

I believe that we as a community should aim for the discussion
matching the following distinctive features of successful
organizations [1]

A) Calm, patient, ego-free leadership styles
B) Vigorous discussion followed by group agreement
C) Brutal realism

There was considerable disagreement and some bad feeling during the discussion.

The main axis of disagreement was between the alterNEP (Nathaniel,
Matthew) and NEP camps (Mark).

This was and is Mark's NEP, Mark is implementing it, and so Mark is
and was in charge.

Mark, as the person implementing, and in charge, has full authority on
the final features.

Now for areas of:

Fruitful disagreement
===============

Here I'm going to express my opinions in the hope that it is helpful.

The main area for reflection should be the discussion of the alterNEP
/ NEP discussion.

In the spirit of the Toyota 5 whys? [2] - let's ask why?

Statement: the alterNEP / NEP discussion failed and led to bad feeling.

Why1: Because we the aNEP party believed were were not being heard
Why2: Because, when we asked for specific feedback, we did not get it
Why3: Because the NEP party had in fact already decided to go for the
NEP implementation
Why4: Because Mark believed that he would lose implementation time by
delaying for further discussion
Why5: Because there was a belief that implementation was more
important than discussion

I think why5 are the most important of these.  My personal belief here
is that we should:

a) Strengthen our commitment to full and open discussion before
substantial API change.
b) Be careful to state the timetable for future NEP discussion. If it
is short for some reason, then we should be specific about that.

I believe that will have the effect of

i) Strengthening our community, so that it will be clear that each
person making substantial comment will be fully heard.
ii) Improving our code by improving the level of discussion.

I think we must be particularly careful to avoid denial-by-delay [3]
or the similar denial-by-no-reply, because these are both very toxic
to openness and trust in discussion.

Best,

Matthew


[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_to_Great
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_Whys
[3] http://thinkexist.com/quotation/delay_is_the_deadliest_form_of_denial/253524.html