[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update
Thu Feb 16 18:22:26 CST 2012
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant <email@example.com> wrote:
> What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don't go wrong.
> But, I personally don't agree that it is necessary to put any more formal structure in place at this time, and we should wait for 6-12 months, and see where we are at while doing everything we can to get more people interested in contributing to the project. I'm comfortable playing the role of BDF12 with a cadre of developers/contributors who seeks to come to consensus. I believe there are sufficient checks on the process that will make it quite difficult for me to *abuse* that in the short term. Charles, Rolf, Mark, David, Robert, Josef, you, and many others are already quite adept at calling me out when I do things they don't like or think are problematic. I encourage them to continue this. I can't promise I'll do everything you want, but I can promise I will listen and take your opinions seriously --- just like I take the opinions of every contributor to the NumPy and SciPy lists seriously (though weighted by the work-effort they have put on the project).
> We can all only continue to do our best to help out wherever we can.
> Just so we are clear: Continuum's current major client is the larger NumPy/SciPy community itself and this will remain the case for at least several months. You have nothing to fear from "other clients" we are trying to please. Thus, we are incentivized to keep as many people happy as possible. In the second place, the Foundation's major client is the same community (and even broader) and the rest of the board is committed to the overall success of the ecosystem. There is a reason the board is comprised of a wide-representation of that eco-system. I am very hopeful that numfocus will evolve over time to have an active community of people who participate in it's processes and plans to support as many projects as it can given the bandwidth and funding available to it.
> So, if I don't participate in this discussion, anymore, it's because I am working on some open-source things I'd like to show at PyCon, and time is clicking down. If you really feel strongly about this, then I would suggest that you come up with a proposal for governance that you would like us all to review. At the SciPy conference in Austin this summer we can talk about it --- when many of us will be face-to-face.
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus.
I see virtually no movement from your implied position at the
beginning of this thread, other than the following 1) yes you are in
charge 2) you'll consider other options in 6 to 12 months.
I think you're saying here that you won't reply any more on this
thread, and I suppose that reflects the importance you attach to this
I will not myself propose a governance model because I do not consider
myself to have enough influence (on various metrics) to make it likely
it would be supported. I wish that wasn't my perception of how things
are done here.
More information about the NumPy-Discussion