[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Thu Feb 16 16:32:19 CST 2012
Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com> wrote:
> I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the status-quo. If I felt like that is what NumPy needed I would be fine with it.
Was it your impression that what was being proposed, was design by committee?
> However, I feel that NumPy is going to be surpassed with other solutions if steps are not taken to improve the code-base *and* add new features.
As far as you are concerned, is there any controversy about that?
> For the next 6-12 months, I am comfortable taking the "benevolent dictator role". During that time, I hope we can find many more core developers and then re-visit the discussion. My view is that design decisions should be a consensus based on current contributors to the code base and major users. To continue to be relevant, NumPy has to serve it's customers. They are the ones who will have the final say. If others feel like they can do better, a fork is an option. I don't want that to happen, but it is the only effective and practical "governance" structure that exists in my mind outside of the self-governance of the people that participate.
To confirm, you are saying that you can imagine no improvement in the
current governance structure?
> No organizational structure can make up for the lack of great people putting their hearts and efforts into a great cause.
But you agree that there might be an organizational structure that
would make this harder or easier?
More information about the NumPy-Discussion