On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett email@example.com wrote:
On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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.
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' 
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.
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.