[SciPy-dev] skype call agenda points

[d_l_goldsmith at yahoo.com]

Hi, Ralf, thanks for your thoughts - I hope you don't mind that I'm replying via the list: I didn't see anything in the email that looked like it should be kept private, and perhaps more people will participate if they see what and how much is on the agenda! :-)

All your agenda items look good - not that I'd reject any of 'em, I see these things as open discussions, so all scipy-dev subscriber's concerns are fair game at these Skypecons.  Also, thanks for RSVP-ing in the positive; others: please follow Ralf's example in that regard if you can.  I have some comments on the items I'll give below, so here let me just remind everyone of the time: tomorrow, Tues. July 14, 18:00 UTC (an hour and a day earlier than usual).

--- On Mon, 7/13/09, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at googlemail.com> wrote:

> Here are some thoughts on what to talk about during the
> call tomorrow. I should be able to make it.
> 
> - we're getting close to being done with Milestones
> accessible to contributors without in-depth knowledge of
> NumPy

Awesome, thanks for pointing this out.

> - how to get the specialized Milestones doc'ed (i.e.
> ctypes, ufuncs, numpy internals,...)

Well, I'll be acquiring "in-depth" knowledge as needed, but I certainly hope I don't have to do 'em all.

> - what is next, scipy reference or numpy user guide, or
> both?

Open to discussion.

> - SciPy Milestones page needs to be done

Yup.

> - note, scipy has 3000 docstrings, it took us >1 year to
> do 1000 for numpy. how to ever get scipy done?

Well, part of the reason it took so long is 'cause the Marathon stalled when the summer hired position terminated; I won't presume there's a causation there, but it certainly suggests that if Joe and I (mostly Joe) can secure long term funding, then the work can progress more continuously.

> - review system, at least should show who reviewed what
> docstring in the Log

Agreed.

Talk to you tomorrow, and again, thanks!

DG

PS: The other reminder - the "category" of the week is to make sure functions w/ nan equivalents are well-documented in that respect.

> Cheers,
> Ralf
> 
> 
>