[Numpy-discussion] NEPaNEP lessons - was: alterNEP

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 1:29 PM, Jason Grout <jason-sage at creativetrax.com> wrote:
> On 7/2/11 6:54 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> Why5: Because there was a belief that implementation was more
>> important than discussion
>
> I hesitate to jump into the discussion here, but it seems to me that
> Mark and others were making the point that beginning implementation
> *informs* the discussion in a very valuable way.  In a case like this
> where it seems like the differences are fundamentally based on untested
> assumptions (e.g., "this would be confusing" or "the consistency would
> provide greater benefits than any confusion"), it seems that having an
> implementation to play around with is a very valuable thing.  Release
> early and often, etc.

There is of course a time to make a draft implementation, and there's
a time to discuss the API in the abstract.

Here the primary discussion I was trying to start was about why the
discussion failed and led to bad feeling.

> Of course, it should also be pointed out that Mark and others are trying
> to have a conference call, where (as they said it) the communication
> bandwidth is greater, which hopefully would lead to more effective and
> clear communication.  I see that as a very responsible thing to do,
> given the intensity of some of the feelings in this discussion.

While phone-calls are often good, I think it would be a mistake to
diagnose this problem as primarily one of hurt feelings.  This is what
I meant about 'Blame the process not the people'.

I also feel strongly that it is important to have substantial
discussions on-list in order to strengthen community involvement and
ownership [1].

I am hoping that, in discussing the process, it will become clear how
we can improve the way we work in order to make discussion richer,
calmer, and more effective.

Best,

Matthew

[1] http://producingoss.com/en/setting-tone.html