On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 2:06 PM, Matthew Brett firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:23 PM, email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Brett <firstname.lastname@example.org
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM, email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM, email@example.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
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.
As the current debate shows it's possible to have a public
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
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' 
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
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.
Is there any evidence for this?
Oh - dear - that's the key point, but I'm obviously not making it clearly enough. Yes there is, and that was the evidence I was pointing to before.
If you mean the XFree and NetBSD cases, then I don't see any similarity to the numpy or scipy development pattern. If I would draw any conclusion, then maybe that NetBSD hat too much of formal governance structures and not enough informal governance. It would be difficult to take over the government if there is no government.
just one aside "*No desire to recruit new users" *
We are on a mission to take over the world (*). And forks of numpy like pandas turn out to be mostly complementary and increase the userbase of numpy.
(R and Python are in friendly, or sometimes unfriendly, competition, but, AFAICS, we are both gaining users because of the others' presence. It's not a zero sum game in this case.)
(*) But that's not in the "mission statement".
But anyway - Sebastian is right - this discussion isn't going anywhere useful.
So - let's step back.
In thinking about governance, we first need to ask what we want to achieve. This includes considering the risks ahead for the project.
So, in the spirit of fruitful discussion, can I ask what y'all consider to be the current problems with working on numpy (other than the technical ones). What is numpy doing well, and what is it doing badly? What risks do we have to plan for in the future?
I thought that was implicit or explicit in the other thread.
Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion