On Do, 2015-08-27 at 17:22 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi,
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM, <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote: [snip]
I don't really see a problem with "codifying" the status quo.
That's an excellent point. If we believe that the current situation is the best possible, both now and in the future, then codifying the status quo is an excellent idea.
So, we should probably first start by asking ourselves:
* what numpy is doing well; * what numpy could do better;
and then ask, is there some way we could make it more likely we will improve over time.
[snip]
As the current debate shows it's possible to have a public discussion about the direction of the project without having to delegate providing a vision to a president.
The idea of a president that I had in mind, was not someone who makes all decisions, but the person who holds themselves responsible for the performance of the project. If the project has a coherent vision already, the president has no need to provide one, but it's the president's job to worry about whether we have vision or not, and do what they need to, to make sure we don't lose track of that. If you don't know it already, I highly recommend Jim Collins' work on 'level 5 leadership' [1]
Still doesn't sound like the need for a president to me
" the person who holds themselves responsible for the performance of the project"
sounds more like the role of the "core" group (adding plural to persons) to me, and cannot be pushed of to an official president.
Except that, in the past, having multiple people taking decisions has led to the situation where no-one feels themselves accountable for the result, hence this situation tends to lead to stagnation.
Frankly, I am failing to see the direction of these arguments. One thing to remember, that a "core" group is much like a BDFL/president with multiple personalities ;), and a "core" group is not a fixed Oligarchy. Anyone able and willing should be in it and the governance document is clear about that I think (of course nothing is perfect, but we can try). There is the thing of "how". I simply fail to see how the president can even be defined considering the size of the numpy development team (say 10, most of whom are busy with other things most of the time). Also, I fail to see how the president would be any more useful then the agreement of some tasks being handled by some people who are enthusiastic about them (note those do not even have to be in the "core" group for starters, though they should become part of it quickly). This is a community effort and I am starting to feel that the ideas you are giving are from a different management/company context. The goal of the governance is to show how and hopefully make it easy for *anyone* to provide vision. We do not need a manager who decides how to focus allocate resources, instead we must tell everyone that we are happy about any help we can get, and that anyone can pick up a topic they are enthusiastic about and drive numpy ahead. And considering accountability, that help may well amount in saying: "Do NOT do this." A "president" willing to run for such an election, should have a specific vision? Why should they be special to implement it? Note this is also the case in BDFL organizations. If you have a vision to improve python, it does not really matter if you happen to be Guido. You write a PEP and, if people like it, it will be implemented. At the same time we *must* have a well defined form of governance also for organizational things. Right now we cannot even decide on putting someone in charge of overseeing our NumFOCUS donations. NumPy could not even spend its own money! Sorry, getting way too long :(.... - Sebastian
Nathaniel to push and organize the discussion, Chuck for continuity, and several core developers for detailed ideas and implementation, and a large number of contributors. (stylized roles) and noisy mailing list for feedback and discussion.
Given the size of the numpy development group, numpy needs individuals for the vision and to push things not a president, vice-presidents and assistant vice-presidents, IMO.
Yes, if the roles were honorary and administrative, they would not be useful.
Cheers,
Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion