[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Wed Feb 15 16:21:15 CST 2012
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:08 PM, T J <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Alan G Isaac <email@example.com>wrote:
>> for the core developers. The right way to produce a
>> governance structure is to make concrete proposals and
>> show how these proposals are in the interest of the
>> *developers* (as well as of the users).
> At this point, it seems to me that Matthew is simply trying to make the
> case that ==some== governance structure should be (or should be more
> clearly) set up. Even this fairly modest goal seems to be receiving
> blowback from some.
> Perhaps a specific proposal would be more convincing to those in
> opposition, but I'd like to think that the merits for
> a governance structure could be appreciated without having specific the
> details of what such a structure would look like. Matthew's links
> certainly make a good case, IMO. He has also described a number of
> scenarios where a governance structure would be helpful (even if we think
> the likelihood of such scenarios is small).
Agreed. During the NA discussion, I remember at one point there was an
attempt to create a governance structure to resolve the dispute. I pushed
back on that idea at the time because we would be trying to form a
governance while in heated arguments. I would like to see a very basic
structure established and agreed upon now, while heads are cool and the
pressure isn't "on" (relatively speaking). The point of these structures
are for the unanticipated situations.
Following the Boy Scouts motto: "Be Prepared!"
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion