Thanks Chuck,
I have been paying some attention, actually --- just not speaking up until
there is a major difference of opinion (like the governance document...).
I guess I don't feel like I've completely lost track of "how things work"
--- while there are some new wonderful faces and contributors. It all
feels pretty familiar to past experiences (just pleasantly bigger and more
people).
I don't expect to be the most active participant for sure, but I continue
to hope to train others where possible and be a resource for others to ask
questions of.
-Travis
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Charles R Harris wrote: On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Travis Oliphant Regarding the seed council, I just tried to pick an objective
criterion and an arbitrary date that seemed generally in keeping with
idea of "should be active in the last 1-to-2-years-ish". Fiddling with
the exact date in particular makes very little difference -- between
pushing it back to 2 years ago today or forward to 1 year ago today,
the only thing that changes is whether Pauli makes the list or not.
(And Pauli is obviously a great council candidate, though I don't know
whether he even wants to be on it.) Personally, I have no idea how big the council should be. Too big, and
there is no point, consensus is harder to reach the larger the group,
and the main (only?) role of the council is to resolve issues where
consensus has not been reached in the larger community. But what is
too big? As for make-up of the council, I think we need to expand beyond people
who have recently contributed core code. Yes, the council does need to have expertise to make technical
decisions, but if you think about the likely contentious issues like
ABI breakage, a core-code focused view is incomplete. So there should
be representation by: Someone(s) with a long history of working with the code -- that
institutional memory of why decisions were made the way they were
could be key. Sure -- though I can't really imagine any way of framing a rule like
this that *wouldn't* be satisfied by Chuck + Ralf + Pauli, so my guess
is that such a rule would not actually have any effect on the council
membership in practice. As the original author of NumPy, I would like to be on the seed council
as long as it is larger than 7 people. That is my proposal. I don't
need to be a permanent member, but I do believe I have enough history that
I can understand issues even if I haven't been working on code directly. I think I do bring history and information that provides all of the
history that could be helpful on occasion. In addition, if a matter is
important enough to even be brought to the attention of this council, I
would like to be involved in the discussion about it. It's a simple change to the text --- basically an explanation that Travis
requested to be on the seed council. I too would like you to be a member. We could either write it into the
text in recognition of your status as the Numpy creator, or it could be the
first order of business. I would only ask that you give yourself some time
to become familiar with how things work and the people involved in the
current community. It has been some years since you have been active in
code development. Chuck _______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion --
*Travis Oliphant*
*Co-founder and CEO*
@teoliphant
512-222-5440
http://www.continuum.io