[SciPy-User] Contributing to SciPy was Re: Least-squares fittings with bounds: why is scipy not up to the task?

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Wed, Mar 14, 2012 at 12:30 PM, denis <denis-bz-gg at t-online.de> wrote:
> On Mar 14, 3:17 pm, David Warde-Farley <warde... at iro.umontreal.ca>
> wrote:
>> On 2012-03-14, at 6:12 AM, Scott Sinclair wrote:
>> I agree, certain sorts of recipes are a better fit than others. However, it would be nice if we had some clear and simple guidelines as to what belongs and what doesn't rather than making it a matter of subjective judgment; otherwise the only fair way forward seems to be accepting almost everything.
>
> "Has anyone used this recipe in living memory ?"
> would be a clear guideline.
> (SO etc. track that with member voting, up / down and when.
> Is there a simple off-the-shelf voting package that we could use for
> recipes ?)
> You're right, the tradeoff isn't easy:
> accept everything -- hodepodge -- or cut through the jungle.
>
> OT / beyond-topic, I think that each major area
> (cluster fft integrate interpolate io ...) should have an owner;
> all recipes with no owner go into "old/..." aka "nobodyknows/..."
> I'm sure that's been discussed, no volunteers ...

I think, if a commenting system, download statistic and tagging or
searching works, then there will be very little "moderation" required.
(I don't think mathworks does on the file exchange, except maybe spam,
clear copyright violation, ..)

(When I was still watching Siskel and Ebert (movie critics) then I
could tell from their comments whether I would like the movie, but
thumbs up or down was often not very informative because of different
tastes.)

Cheers,

Josef

>
> cheers
>  -- denis
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-User mailing list
> SciPy-User at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-user