[Numpy-discussion] Future of numpy (was: DARPA funding for Blaze and passing the NumPy torch)

Ondřej Čertík ondrej.certik at gmail.com
Thu Dec 20 20:48:18 EST 2012

Hi Matthew,

On Thu, Dec 20, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
> [Travis wrote...]
>> My strong suggestion is that development discussions of the project continue on
>> this list with consensus among the active participants being the goal for
>> development.  I don't think 100% consensus is a rigid requirement --- but
>> certainly a super-majority should be the goal, and serious changes should not be
>> made with out a clear consensus.     I would pay special attention to
>> under-represented people (users with intense usage of NumPy but small voices on
>> this list).   There are many of them.    If you push me for specifics then at
>> this point in NumPy's history, I would say that if Chuck, Nathaniel, and Ralf
>> agree on a course of action, it will likely be a good thing for the project.   I
>> suspect that even if only 2 of the 3 agree at one time it might still be a good
>> thing (but I would expect more detail and discussion).    There are others whose
>> opinion should be sought as well:  Ondrej Certik, Perry Greenfield, Robert Kern,
>> David Cournapeau, Francesc Alted, and Mark Wiebe to name a few.    For some
>> questions, I might even seek input from people like Konrad Hinsen and Paul
>> Dubois --- if they have time to give it.   I will still be willing to offer my
>> view from time to time and if I am asked.
> Thank you for starting this discussion.
> I am more or less offline at the moment in Cuba and flying, but I hope
> very much this will be an opportunity for a good discussion on the
> best way forward for numpy.
> Travis - I think you are suggesting that there should be no  one
> person in charge of numpy, and I think this is very unlikely to work
> well.   Perhaps there are good examples of well-led projects where
> there is not a clear leader, but I can't think of any myself at the
> moment.  My worry would be that, without a clear leader, it will be
> unclear how decisions are made, and that will make it very hard to
> take strategic decisions.
> I would like to humbly suggest the following in the hope that it spurs
> discussion.
> As first pass, Ralf, Chuck and Nathaniel decide on a core group of
> people that will form the succession committee.  Maybe this could be
> the list of people you listed above.
> Ralf, Chuck and Nathaniel then ask for people to wish to propose
> themselves as the leader of numpy.  Anyone proposing themselves to
> lead numpy would remove themselves from the succession committee.
> The proposed leaders of numpy write a short manifesto saying why they
> are the right choice for the job, and what they intend to do if
> elected.  The manifestos and issues arising are discussed in public on
> the mailing list - the equivalent of an online presidential debate.
> In due course - say after 2 weeks or after the discussion seems to be
> dying out - the succession committee votes on the leader.  I propose
> that these votes should be public, but I can see the opposite
> argument.

Travis has very clearly made "Chuck, Nathaniel, and Ralf" as the leaders
of the project. But as always ---- he didn't pick them because he
needed to create leaders. They were already the de-facto leaders
of the project due to their actions, involvements and respect in the community,
so he just made it official.

> How does that sound?

To me that sounds like a bad idea. That being said, if Chuck,
Nathaniel, and Ralf
agree that it would be a good idea, that's fine with me too.


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list