[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Nathaniel Smith njs@pobox....
Thu Feb 16 13:53:18 CST 2012


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.root@ou.edu> wrote:
> 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).

BTW, this is still on my todo list -- sorry for dropping the ball
here. Perhaps once I find a flat here in Edinburgh.

> The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance
> structure would help resolve disputes.

I think the important question is, in an ideal world, what would have
been done to help resolve this dispute? My best idea was to try and
organize a document articulating points of consensus -- I'm not sure
what sort of governance structure would have helped with that. A
committee with an odd number of members is good at voting on things,
but would a vote have helped? I dunno, I'm not saying it wouldn't --
just that it's something we might want to think about before we start
writing bylaws.

-- Nathaniel


More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list