On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 7:46 PM, Benjamin Root <ben.r...@ou.edu> wrote: > Why not the NA discussion? Would we really want to have that happen again? > Note that it still isn't fully resolved and progress still needs to be made > (I think the last thread did an excellent job of fleshing out the ideas, but > it became too much to digest. We may need to have someone go through the > information, reduce it down and make one last push to bring it to a > conclusion).
BTW, this is still on my todo list -- sorry for dropping the ball here. Perhaps once I find a flat here in Edinburgh. > The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance > structure would help resolve disputes. I think the important question is, in an ideal world, what would have been done to help resolve this dispute? My best idea was to try and organize a document articulating points of consensus -- I'm not sure what sort of governance structure would have helped with that. A committee with an odd number of members is good at voting on things, but would a vote have helped? I dunno, I'm not saying it wouldn't -- just that it's something we might want to think about before we start writing bylaws. -- Nathaniel _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
