Hi, On Sun, Apr 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM, Nathaniel Smith <[email protected]> wrote: > If you hang around big FOSS projects, you'll see the word "consensus" > come up a lot. For example, the glibc steering committee recently > dissolved itself in favor of governance "directly by the consensus of > the people active in glibc development"[1]. It's the governing rule of > the IETF, which defines many of the most important internet > standards[2]. It is the "primary way decisions are made on > Wikipedia"[3]. It's "one of the fundamental aspects of accomplishing > things within the Apache framework"[4]. > > [1] https://lwn.net/Articles/488778/ > [2] https://www.ietf.org/tao.html#getting.things.done > [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus > [4] https://www.apache.org/foundation/voting.html
I think the big problem here is that Chuck (I hope I'm not misrepresenting him) is not interested in discussion of process, and the last time we had a specific thread on governance, Travis strongly implied he was not very interested either, at least at the time. In that situation, there's rather a high threshold to pass before getting involved in the discussion, and I think you're seeing some evidence for that. So, as before, and as we discussed on gchat :) - whether this discussion can go anywhere depends on Travis. Travis - what do you think? See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list [email protected] http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
