[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Wed Feb 15 15:00:55 CST 2012
On Feb 15, 2012, at 3:01 PM, Matthew Brett wrote:
My 2 cents.
I think you put too much faith in formal systems. There are plenty of
examples of formal governance that fail miserably. In the end it
depends on the people and their willingness to continue cooperating.
Formal governance won't protect people from misbehaving or abusing the
formal system if they are so inclined.
So my thought on this is why not see how it works out. Even if
Travis's company has a conflict of interest (and that is certainly a
possibility) it isn't always a bad thing. Look at two scenarios:
1) a project requires that all work is done by altruistic people with
no conflicts of interest. But it languishes due to a lack of
2) a big, bad, evil, self-interested company infuses lots of resources
and talent, and they bend the project their way to meet their
interests. The resulting project has lots of new capability, but isn't
quite as pure as the altruistic people would have had it. (Mind you,
it's still open source software!)
Neither is ideal. But sometimes it's 2) that has led to progress. If
the distortion of the self interested companies it too big, then it's
a net negative. But even the self-interested company has a large stake
in seeing the community not split.
And you see this in the open source community all the time, even from
the "altruistic". Those that do the work generally get the most say in
how it is done.
Finally, I think you should cut Travis some slack here. No one has
come close to the personal investment in numpy that he has (and you
probably aren't aware of all if it). If anyone deserves the benefit of
the doubt, it's Travis. Why not base criticism on actual problems
rather than anticipated ones?
(full disclosure: one of those selected board members)
More information about the NumPy-Discussion