[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Wed Feb 15 14:09:48 CST 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 11:46 AM, Benjamin Root <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:32 PM, Alan G Isaac <email@example.com> wrote:
>> Can you provide an example where a more formal
>> governance structure for NumPy would have meant
>> more or better code development? (Please do not
>> suggest the NA discussion!)
> Why not the NA discussion? Would we really want to have that happen again?
> Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be made
> (I think the last thread did an excellent job of fleshing out the ideas, but
> it became too much to digest. We may need to have someone go through the
> information, reduce it down and make one last push to bring it to a
> conclusion). The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance
> structure would help resolve disputes.
Yes, that was the most obvious example. I don't know about you, but I
can't see any sign of that one being resolved.
The other obvious example was the dispute about ABI breakage for numpy
1.5.0 where I believe Travis did invoke some sort of committee to
vote, but (Travis can correct me if I'm wrong), the committee was
named ad-hoc and contacted off-list.
>> Can you provide an example of what you might
>> envision as a "more formal governance structure"?
>> (I assume that any such structure will not put people
>> who are not core contributors to NumPy in a position
>> to tell core contributors what to spend their time on.)
>> Early last December, Chuck Harris estimated that three
>> people were active NumPy developers. I liked the idea of
>> creating a "board" of these 3 and a rule that says any
>> active developer can request to join the board, that
>> additions are determined by majority vote of the existing
>> board, and that having the board both small and odd
>> numbered is a priority. I also suggested inviting to this
>> board a developer or two from important projects that are
>> very NumPy dependent (e.g., Matplotlib).
>> I still like this idea. Would it fully satisfy you?
> I actually like that idea. Matthew, is this along the lines of what you
> were thinking?
Honestly it would make me very happy if the discussion moved to what
form the governance should take. I would have thought that 3 was too
small a number. We should look at what other projects do. I think
that this committee needs to be people who know numpy code; projects
using numpy could advise, but people developing numpy should vote I
There should be rules of engagement, a constitution, especially how to
deal with disputes with Continuum or other contracting organizations.
I would personally very much like to see a committment to consensus,
where possible on these lines (as noted previously by Nathaniel):
More information about the NumPy-Discussion