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. Cheers, Matthew