Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Sturla Molden  wrote:
>
> Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>
> > Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
> > at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
> > anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
> > :-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
> > substantive comes up.
>
> Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate
> of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or
> two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how
> much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto
> rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as
> my contributions are minute... OMG.

Are you planning to go around vetoing things for ridiculous reasons
and causing havoc?

If so, then notice that the steering council reserves the right to
kick you out ;-). And if not, then who is it that you're worried
about?

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Sturla Molden]

Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> Are you planning to go around vetoing things 

I don't consider myself qualified.

> for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?

That would be unpolite.

> And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?

I am not sure :)

I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)


Sturla

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Benjamin Root]

There is the concept of consensus-driven development, which centers on veto
rights. It does assume that all actors are driven by a common goal to
improve the project. For example, the fact that we didn't have consensus
back during the whole NA brouhaha was actually a good thing because IMHO
including NA into NumPy would have hurt the community more than it would
have helped.

Ben Root

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Sturla Molden 
wrote:

> Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
>
> > Are you planning to go around vetoing things
>
> I don't consider myself qualified.
>
> > for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?
>
> That would be unpolite.
>
> > And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?
>
> I am not sure :)
>
> I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
> filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)
>
>
> Sturla
>
> ___
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Chris Barker]

On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Sturla Molden 
wrote:

> I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
> filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)


Oh if only the US Senate could expulse people!

-sigh


-- 

Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR(206) 526-6959   voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE   (206) 526-6329   fax
Seattle, WA  98115   (206) 526-6317   main reception

chris.bar...@noaa.gov
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Sturla Molden]

Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
> at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
> anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
> :-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
> substantive comes up.

Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate
of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or
two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how
much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto
rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as
my contributions are minute... OMG.


Sturla

___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Travis Oliphant  wrote:
> Hi everyone,
>
> After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the
> discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
> steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth. Nothing
> matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
>
> So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance
> model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council.
> The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy and
> will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the community
> over the past year(s).We can always revisit the question in a year if
> difficulties arise with the model.

Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your
confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you
around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your
efforts -- they're very much appreciated.

I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and
that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm
avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue
to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do
that using the mechanisms described in the document itself.

I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
first posted:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits

I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
do the honors?

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Charles R Harris
 wrote:
>
> On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:
[...]
>> I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
>> formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
>> the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
>> first posted:
>>
>> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
>>
>> I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
>> do the honors?
>
>
> I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready.

Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
:-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
substantive comes up.

-n

-- 
Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

Re: [Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Charles R Harris]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith  wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Travis Oliphant 
> wrote:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading
> the
> > discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
> > steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth.
>  Nothing
> > matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
> >
> > So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the
> governance
> > model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering
> council.
> > The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy
> and
> > will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the
> community
> > over the past year(s).We can always revisit the question in a year if
> > difficulties arise with the model.
>
> Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your
> confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you
> around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your
> efforts -- they're very much appreciated.
>
> I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and
> that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm
> avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue
> to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do
> that using the mechanisms described in the document itself.
>
> I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
> formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
> the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
> first posted:
>
> https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
>
> I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
> do the honors?
>

I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready.

Chuck
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Travis Oliphant]

Hi everyone,

After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the
discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth.
Nothing matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.

So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance
model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council.
   The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy
and will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the
community over the past year(s).We can always revisit the question in a
year if difficulties arise with the model.

If my voice and other strong voices remain outside the council, perhaps we
can all encourage that the intended community governance of NumPy does in
fact happen, and most decisions continue to be made in the open.

I had the pleasure last night of meeting one of the new NumPy core
contributors, Allan Haldane.   This only underscored my confidence in
everyone who is contributing to NumPy today.   This confidence has already
been established by watching the great contributions of many talented
developers who have given their time and talents to the project over the
past several years.

I hope that we can move on from the governance discussion and continue to
promote the success of the project together.

Best,

-Travis
___
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion