On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:12 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 6:07 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 8:49 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> >>> On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn >>> <d.s.seljeb...@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)? >>> Mark >>> Peter >>> Bryan vdv >>> Perry >>> Dag >>> >>> In favor of some sort of formalization of governance to be decided are: >>> >>> Me >>> Ben R (did I get that right?) >>> Bruce Southey >>> Souheil Inati >>> TJ >>> Joe H >>> >>> I am not quite sure which side of that fence are: >>> >>> Josef >> >> Actually in the sense of separation of powers, I would vote for Chuck >> as president, Travis as prime minister and an independent release >> manager as supreme court, and the noisy mailing list community as >> parliament. > > That sounds dangerously Canadian ...
Or Austrian or German > > But actually - I was hoping for an answer to whether you felt there > was a need for a more formal governance structure, or not. I thought a president, a prime minister and a parliament makes for a formal government structure. :) maybe more personalized in the American tradition. I'm in favor of a more formal governance structure, however the only real enforcement I see is in the reputation and goodwill, if all keys are in one hand. I think spelling out both governance and guidelines for development and testing make it easier to make it clear what we can expect and so that we know when we should be upset (a bit of repeated game enforcement since I'm an economist). I have no idea how formal governance structures work in open source. Actually, I liked the recent situation with a visionary 2.0 sometimes in the future, while Chuck and Ralf kept putting out 1.x releases with careful control of going forward and not breaking anything (I'm not sure how to phrase this), with, of course, Mark doing large parts of the heavy work. Josef > >> (I don't see a constitution yet.) > > My feeling is there is not enough appetite for any change for that to > be worth thinking about, but I might be wrong. > > See you, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
