Hi, Thanks for this reply - it's very helpful. On Sat, Jan 14, 2017 at 8:17 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
Fri, 13 Jan 2017 09:22:58 -0800, Matthew Brett kirjoitti: [clip]
So, I propose, rather than have a BDFL, we have a system for choosing a leader, say every 4 years, where we may or may not have limits on the number of consecutive terms.
I have no problem in principle with a model with a less permanent final decision authority role, or with more fallbacks for cases of serious conflict. However, I don't immediately know how to write down the details of such a model, and I think amendments would be best communicated via change suggestions in the PR.
On the other hand, I must say I don't immediately see the value in making this role regularly rotating. This is because: (i) the person can step down at any time, and acting in good faith, will also listen to serious calls to do so, (ii) regular elections can generate unnecessary work and politics -- looking at the past 10 years of scipy, there has been little of this, and I believe this is for the best, (iii) this is more of a role for fallback decision making and less for a director/CEO.
Yes, right, we should certainly try to avoid adding a political process where it isn't needed. What do you think about the idea of having regular state-of-scipy reviews to make sure we're conscious about keeping on track, assessing risks, improving process? Cheers, Matthew