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

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 5:15 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> 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.

Are you now going to explain why you believe our criticisms and
feedback are not well informed?

See you,

Matthew