[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Charles R Harris
Wed Feb 15 15:27:11 CST 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM, Mark Wiebe <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:09 PM, Matthew Brett <email@example.com>wrote:
>> 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>
>> >> 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
>> > Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be
>> > (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
>> > information, reduce it down and make one last push to bring it to a
>> > conclusion). The NA discussion is the perfect example where a
>> > 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.
> One thing to note about this point is that during the NA discussion, the
> only people doing active C-level development were Charles and me. I suspect
> a discussion about how to recruit more people into that group might be more
> important than governance at this point in time.
You flatter me, but thanks ;) Over the past 15 months or so, it's been
pretty much all Mark.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion