On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 2:40 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebastian@sipsolutions.net> wrote:

On Fr, 2015-08-28 at 09:46 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2015 at 5:59 AM, Jaime Fernández del Río
> <jaime.frio@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:23 PM,  <josef.pktd@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Brett
> >> > <matthew.brett@gmail.com>
> >> > 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.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > 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.
> >>
> >> 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?
> >
> > <joke>
> > Are you trying to prove the point that consensus doesn't work by making it
> > impossible to reach a consensus on this? ;-)
> > </joke>
>
> Forgive me if I use this joke to see if I can get us any further.
>
> If this was code, I think this joke would not be funny, because we
> wouldn't expect to reach consensus without considering all the
> options, and discussing their pros and cons.
>
> Why would that not be useful in the case of forms of governance?
>

Oh, it is true. I think we (those in the room in Austin) just have
thought about it a bit already, so now we have to be a bit patient with
everyone who just saw the plans the first time. But I hope we can agree
that we should decide on some form of governance in the next few weeks,
even if it may not be perfect.

My personal problem with your ideas is not that I do not care for the
warnings, but having already spend some time trying to put together this
(and this is nothing weird, this is very common practice in open
source), I personally do not want to spend time inventing something
completely new.

We must discuss improvements to the document, and even whole different
approaches. But for me at least, I need something a little more
specific. Maybe I am daft, but I hear "this is a bad idea" without also
providing another approach (that seems doable).
And I do not buy that it is *that* bad, it is a very common governance
structure for open source. The presidency suggestions may be another
approach and certainly something we can pick up ideas from, but to me it
is so vague that I cannot even start comprehending what it would mean
for the actual governance structure specifically for numpy (considering
the size of the project, etc.).

But by all means, I like proposals/learning from your ideas (i.e. maybe
you can propose changes to the NEP sections), I personally would just
like to see a bit more clearly where it goes.

Perhaps we could add a paragraph to the document, stating that we understand the risks and will keep an eye open for the dilution of responsibility and lack of direction and ownership that may come from consensus based decision making.  And make it part of our governance model that we will review the model yearly, to identify and correct issues.  That wouldn't require any substantial change right now, but wouldn't crystallize a potentially harmful organization either.

Jaime

P.S. At some point during the discussion in Austin, the idea going around was that the NUMFocus committee, which at the time was going to have three members only, would also be vested with ultimate decision power. Just imagine, we could have had a proper triumvirate: Chuck, Nathaniel and Ralf, wearing togas and feasting around a triclinium while they decided the fate of NumPy!