[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Thu Feb 16 13:17:50 CST 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:03 PM, Matthew Brett <email@example.com>wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted <firstname.lastname@example.org>
> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 12:15 PM, Jason Grout wrote:
> >> On 2/15/12 6:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn wrote:
> >>> But in the very end, when agreement can't
> >>> be reached by other means, the developers are the one making the calls.
> >>> (This is simply a consequence that they are the only ones who can
> >>> credibly threaten to fork the project.)
> >> Interesting point. I hope I'm not pitching a log onto the fire here,
> >> but in numpy's case, there are very many capable developers on other
> >> projects who depend on numpy who could credibly threaten a fork if they
> >> felt numpy was drastically going wrong.
> > Jason, that there capable developers out there that are able to fork
> NumPy (or any other project you can realize) is a given. The point Dag was
> signaling is that this threaten is more probable to happen *inside* the
> > And you pointed out an important aspect too by saying "if they felt
> numpy was drastically going wrong". It makes me the impression that some
> people is very frightened about something really bad would happen, well
> before it happens. While I agree that this is *possible*, I'd also
> advocate to give Travis the benefit of doubt. I'm convinced he (and
> Continuum as a whole) is making things happen that will benefit the entire
> NumPy community; but in case something gets really wrong and catastrophic,
> it is always a relief to know that things can be reverted in the pure open
> source tradition (by either doing a fork, creating a new foundation, or
> even better, proposing a new way to do things). What it does not sound
> reasonable to me is to allow fear to block Continuum efforts for making a
> better NumPy. I think it is better to relax a bit, see how things are
> going, and then judge by looking at the *results*.
> I'm finding this conversation a bit frustrating.
> The question on the table as I understand it, is just the following:
> Is there any governance structure / procedure / set of guidelines that
> would help ensure the long-term health of the numpy project?
> The subtext of your response is that you regard *any structure at all*
> as damaging to the numpy effort and in particular, as damaging to the
> efforts of Continuum. It seems to me that is a very extreme point of
> view, and I think, honestly, it is not tenable.
That's not exactly how I'd interpret Peter's answer.
> But surely - surely - the best thing to do here is to formulate
> something that might be acceptable, and for everyone to say what they
> think the problems would be. Do you agree?
David has made a concrete proposal for a procedure. It looks to me like
that's an appropriate and adequate safeguard against Continuum pushing
things into Numpy. Would that be enough for you? If not, would it at least
be a good start?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the NumPy-Discussion