On 2015/09/04 10:53 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Brett matthew.brett@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Chris Barker chris.barker@noaa.gov wrote:
- I very much agree that governance can make or break a project. However,
the actual governance approach often ends up making less difference than the people involved.
- While the FreeBSD and XFree examples do point to some real problems with
the "core" model it seems that there are many other projects that are using it quite successfully.
I was just rereading the complaints about the 'core' structure from high-level NetBSD project leaders:
"[the "core" and "board of directors"] teams are dysfunctional because they do not provide leadership: all they do is act reactively to requests from users and/or to resolve internal disputes. In other words: there is no initiative nor vision emerging from these teams (and, for that matter, from anybody)." [1]
"There is no high-level direction; if you ask "what about the problems with threads" or "will there be a flash-friendly file system", the best you'll get is "we'd love to have both" -- but no work is done to recruit people to code these things, or encourage existing developers to work on them." [2]
This is consistent with Chris's first point.
I imagine we will have to reconcile ourselves to similar problems, if we adopt the same structures.
Do you have suggestions as to who would make a good numpy president or BDFL and potentially has the time and inclination to do it, or how to identify and recruit such a person?
Eric
Cheers,
Matthew
[1] http://julipedia.meroh.net/2013/06/self-interview-after-leaving-netbsd.html [2] http://mail-index.netbsd.org/netbsd-users/2006/08/30/0016.html _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion