Let's move forward with the current governance document.
Hi everyone, After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth. Nothing matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve. So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council. The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy and will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the community over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a year if difficulties arise with the model. If my voice and other strong voices remain outside the council, perhaps we can all encourage that the intended community governance of NumPy does in fact happen, and most decisions continue to be made in the open. I had the pleasure last night of meeting one of the new NumPy core contributors, Allan Haldane. This only underscored my confidence in everyone who is contributing to NumPy today. This confidence has already been established by watching the great contributions of many talented developers who have given their time and talents to the project over the past several years. I hope that we can move on from the governance discussion and continue to promote the success of the project together. Best, -Travis
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io> wrote:
Hi everyone,
After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth. Nothing matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council. The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy and will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the community over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a year if difficulties arise with the model.
Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your efforts -- they're very much appreciated. I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do that using the mechanisms described in the document itself. I've just updated the governance document pull request with final formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was first posted: https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to do the honors? -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Hi everyone,
After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading
On Fri, Oct 2, 2015 at 6:40 PM, Travis Oliphant <travis@continuum.io> wrote: the
discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth. Nothing matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council. The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy and will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the community over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a year if difficulties arise with the model.
Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your efforts -- they're very much appreciated.
I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do that using the mechanisms described in the document itself.
I've just updated the governance document pull request with final formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was first posted:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to do the honors?
I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready. Chuck
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.harris@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 1:24 AM, Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
[...]
I've just updated the governance document pull request with final formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was first posted:
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to do the honors?
I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready.
Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above :-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything substantive comes up. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above :-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything substantive comes up.
Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as my contributions are minute... OMG. Sturla
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 1:50 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above :-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything substantive comes up.
Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as my contributions are minute... OMG.
Are you planning to go around vetoing things for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc? If so, then notice that the steering council reserves the right to kick you out ;-). And if not, then who is it that you're worried about? -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- http://vorpus.org
Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Are you planning to go around vetoing things
I don't consider myself qualified.
for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?
That would be unpolite.
And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?
I am not sure :) I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-) Sturla
There is the concept of consensus-driven development, which centers on veto rights. It does assume that all actors are driven by a common goal to improve the project. For example, the fact that we didn't have consensus back during the whole NA brouhaha was actually a good thing because IMHO including NA into NumPy would have hurt the community more than it would have helped. Ben Root On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 5:11 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
Nathaniel Smith <njs@pobox.com> wrote:
Are you planning to go around vetoing things
I don't consider myself qualified.
for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?
That would be unpolite.
And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?
I am not sure :)
I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)
Sturla
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
On Mon, Oct 5, 2015 at 2:11 PM, Sturla Molden <sturla.molden@gmail.com> wrote:
I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)
Oh if only the US Senate could expulse people! -sigh -- Christopher Barker, Ph.D. Oceanographer Emergency Response Division NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice 7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception Chris.Barker@noaa.gov
participants (6)
-
Benjamin Root -
Charles R Harris -
Chris Barker -
Nathaniel Smith -
Sturla Molden -
Travis Oliphant