[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Thu Feb 16 13:54:15 CST 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 11:03 AM, Matthew Brett <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 4:23 AM, Francesc Alted <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> 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 community.
>> 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.
> 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?
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I think the subtext has more been that
worrying about potential problems--which aren't yet actual
problems--isn't terribly productive. Particularly when the people
involved are smart, invested in the success of the broader numpy
package, and very deserving of the benefit of the doubt.
Also, as Ralf said, David made a concrete proposal. What are your
comments on his proposal?
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
More information about the NumPy-Discussion