On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:35 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
Hi,
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk <m.h.vankerkwijk@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Matthew,
it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint with a relatively small amount of effort.
My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a suggestion for part of this blueprint!
I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I intend to contribute much beyond this e-mail. Indeed, it may be that the old adage "every initiative is punishable" holds here...
I understand what you're saying, but I think a more helpful way of thinking of it, is putting the groundwork in place for the most fruitful possible collaboration.
would you, or one of the others who feels it is important to have a blueprint, be willing to provide a concrete text for discussion?
It doesn't make sense for me to do that, I'm #13 for commits in the last year. I'm just one of the many people who completely depend on numpy. Also, taking a little time to think these things through seems like a small investment with the potential for significant gain, in terms of improving communication and mitigating risk.
So, I think my suggestion is that it would be a good idea for Nathaniel and the current steering committee to talk through how this is going to play out, how the work will be selected and directed, and so on.
Frankly, I would suggest to wait for now and ask whoever is going to get the job to work out how they think it should be handled. And then we complain if we expect more/better ;).
This is roughly where I am as well. Certainly this is an important issue, but we've already done a lot of groundwork in the abstract – the dev meeting, formalizing the governance document, and so forth (and recall that "let's get to a point where we can apply for grants" was explicitly one of the goals in those discussions). I think at this point the most productive thing to do is wait until we have a more concrete picture of who/what/when will be happening, so we can make a concrete plan.
For now I only would say that I will expect more community type of work then we now often manage to do. And things such as meticulously sticking to writing NEPs. So the only thing I can see that might be good is putting "community work" or something like it specifically as part of the job description,
Definitely.
and thats up to Nathaniel probably.
Some things like not merging large changes by two people sittings in the same office should be obvious (and even if it happens, we can revert). But its nothing much new there I think.
-n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org