[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail....
Wed Feb 15 19:49:53 CST 2012


On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn
<d.s.seljebotn@astro.uio.no> wrote:
> On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:

>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a
>> combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull
>> requests occur, and who has commit rights.
> +1
> If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that
> we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would
> have discussions in order to veto pull requests, I don't know whether
> we'd ignore it or ridicule it or try to show some patience, but we
> certainly wouldn't take it seriously.

In the spirit (as I read) of Dag's post, maybe we should accept that
this thread is not going anywhere much, and summarize:

The current situation is the following:

Travis is de-facto BDFL for Numpy
Disputes get resolved by convening an ad-hoc group of interested and /
or active developers to resolve or vote, maybe off-list.  How this
happens is for Travis to call.

I think that's reasonable?

As far as I can make out, in favor of the current status quo with no
significant modification are:

Travis (is that right)?
Bryan vdv

In favor of some sort of formalization of governance to be decided are:

Ben R (did I get that right?)
Bruce Southey
Souheil Inati
Joe H

I am not quite sure which side of that fence are:


If I missed someone who gave an opinion - sorry - please do speak up.

I think it's clear that if - you, Travis, don't want to go this
direction, there isn't much chance of anything happening, and I think
those of us who think something needs doing will have to keep quiet,
as Dag suggests.

I would only suggest that you (Travis) specify that you will take the
BDFL role so that we can be clear about the informal governance at



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list