Hi, On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:10 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 1:44 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 7:33 AM, Nathaniel Smith <n...@pobox.com> wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> Here's a first draft of a governance document for NumPy. >> >> Thanks for this. >> >> I wasn't sure from your email whether you were asking for feedback as >> to whether this was the right governance model? >> >> I mean that - for code - I think the usual procedure would be to >> discuss various potential solutions on the mailing list, and then >> follow up with something like a NEP that lays out the various >> alternatives with their pros and cons. But I have the impression here >> that you consider the general form to be set, and that you are asking >> for comments on the detail. Is that right? > > I believe that the draft I sent around does reflect the consensus of > those who were present at the dev meeting, but (as the document itself > emphasizes!) of course it's helpful to hear critiques and concerns and > ideas for how to do better...
I imagine this document was designed to be uncontroversial, in the sense that it more or less formalizes the status quo? I think it would be useful to set out alternatives that were or could be considered. It would be a shame to drift into the wrong governance model for lack of considering others. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
