[Numpy-discussion] alterNEP - was: missing data discussion round 2

[Charles R Harris]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:00 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 4:34 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 3:09 PM, Mark Wiebe <mwwiebe at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 6:58 AM, Matthew Brett <
> matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> >> > wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> Hi,
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 2:36 AM, Keith Goodman <kwgoodman at gmail.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >> > On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 10:51 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com>
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> >> On Thu, Jun 30, 2011 at 6:31 AM, Matthew Brett
> >> >> >> <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> >>> In the interest of making the discussion as concrete as possible,
> >> >> >>> here
> >> >> >>> is my draft of an alternative proposal for NAs and masking, based
> >> >> >>> on
> >> >> >>> Nathaniel's comments.  Writing it, it seemed to me that Nathaniel
> >> >> >>> is
> >> >> >>> right, that the ideas become much clearer when the NA idea and
> the
> >> >> >>> MASK idea are separate.   Please do pitch in for things I may
> have
> >> >> >>> missed or misunderstood:
> >> >> >> [...]
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Thanks for writing this up! I stuck it up as a gist so we can edit
> >> >> >> it
> >> >> >> more easily:
> >> >> >>  https://gist.github.com/1056379/
> >> >> >> This is your initial version:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> https://gist.github.com/1056379/c809715f4e9765db72908c605468304ea1eb2191
> >> >> >> And I made a few changes:
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>
> https://gist.github.com/1056379/33ba20300e1b72156c8fb655bd1ceef03f8a6583
> >> >> >> Specifically, I added a rationale section, changed np.MASKED to
> >> >> >> np.IGNORE (as per comments in this thread), and added a vowel to
> >> >> >> "propmsk".
> >> >> >
> >> >> > It might be helpful to make a small toy class in python so that
> >> >> > people
> >> >> > can play around with NA and IGNORE from the alterNEP.
> >> >>
> >> >> Thanks for doing this.
> >> >>
> >> >> I don't know about you, but I don't know where to work on the
> >> >> discussion or draft implementation, because I am not sure where the
> >> >> disagreement is.  Lluis has helpfully pointed out a specific case of
> >> >> interest.   Pierre has fed back with some points of clarification.
> >> >> However, other than that, I'm not sure what we should be discussing.
> >> >>
> >> >> @Mark
> >> >> @Chuck
> >> >> @anyone
> >> >>
> >> >> Do you see problems with the alterNEP proposal?
> >> >
> >> > Yes, I really like my design as it stands now, and the alterNEP
> removes
> >> > a
> >> > lot of the abstraction and interoperability that are in my opinion the
> >> > best
> >> > parts. I've made more updates to the NEP based on continuing feedback,
> >> > which
> >> > are part of the pull request I want reviews for.
> >>
> >> Ah - I think what you are saying is - too late I've started writing it.
> >
> > Do you want me to spend my whole summer designing something before
> starting
> > the implementation?
>
> No, but, this is an open source project.  Hence it matters not only
> what gets written but how the decisions are made and quality of the
> discussion.   Here what I see is that you lost interest in the
> discussion some time ago and stopped responding in any specific way.
> This unfortunately conveys a lack of interest in our views.   That
> might not be true, in which case I'm sure you can convey the opposite
> with some substantial discsussion now.  Or it might be for good
> reason, heaven knows I've been wrong enough times.  But the community
> cost is high for the sake of an extra few days implementation time.
> Frankly I think the API will also suffer, but I'm less certain about
> that.
>

What open source has trouble with isn't discussion, it's attracting active
and competent developers. You should treat them as gifts from the $deity
when they show up. If they are open and responsive to discussion, and I
think Mark is, so much the better. Mind, you don't need to bow down and kiss
their feet, but you should at least take the time to understand what they
are doing so your criticisms and feedback are informed.

Chuck
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20110701/32cb4dc8/attachment.html>