Hi,

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 3:24 PM, Evgeni Burovski
<evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Eric Larson <larson.eric.d@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My feeling is that having a clear leader in place is important, so I'm
>>>>>>> also leaning away from the numpy model towards one where
>>>>>>> responsibilities are more explicitly assigned.  Exactly how to best
>>>>>>> make
>>>>>>> that assignment is still unclear to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> +1 for BD(FL) / leader-style from me, too. I like Matthew's suggestion
>>>>>> of the top 5 active folks discuss to see which of them are actually
>>>>>> interested in taking on that role.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for the feedback everyone. Looks like everyone likes this
>>>>> suggestion so far, so we'll give that a try.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi all, I'm happy to report that we've worked this out. Pauli was our
>>>> preferred candidate, and he has agreed to take up the role of BDFL!
>
> <snip>
>
>> The main question I'd like to raise, is whether we really want a BDFL,
>> as opposed to an elected projected leader.
>>
>> I think a BDFL makes sense where there's one person who started the
>> project, wrote most of the code (at least at some point in the
>> project's history), has been in charge since the beginning, and is
>> still very active.   I think that does correspond to the situation for
>> Linus  / Linux; Guido / Python; and Fernando / IPython.   I don't
>> think we have anyone matching that description in Scipy.
>>
>> On the other hand, I do think it's important to have a project leader,
>> with final authority on the direction of the project, and who takes
>> responsibility for the health of the project.
>>
>> So, I propose, rather than have a BDFL, we have a system for choosing
>> a leader,
>
> Which is exactly how it worked this time --- using the system of your
> suggestion, https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-September/021476.html
>
>
>> say every 4 years, where we may or may not have limits on
>> the number of consecutive terms.
>
> While I agree that this model is better in the vast majority of
> situations, it feels to be a bit of over-engineering for scipy.
>
>> We can use that 4 year cycle to
>> make sure we're reconsidering the direction of the project regularly,
>> and thinking about where we could improve, and where we might be
>> messing up.   It provides a natural way to give people a rest from the
>> job, if they want one.   If one leader steps back, and sees another
>> leader doing something better than they did, they can learn from that
>> when they next have a leadership term.
>
> I agree it's worth it to periodically sit down and think about the
> direction of the project.
> I'm not sure though there is benefit in tying this up to a machinery
> of fixed-time leadership terms, holding formal elections and so on.
>
>
>> Of course that requires some formalization, but I think it's a
>> considerably better system than the BDFL, for our case.
>
> It seems to me that the effort needed to formalize it is not worth the
> benefit, specifically in our case.

Well - as a broader community, I think we'll have to do this anyway.
For example, I know that Stefan vdW wants to set up this model for
scikit-image.   I am sure he'd be happy to help draft it, I know I
would.  Maybe we could do that in relation to this PR, making sure
that we set some reasonable time limit for getting it done, say 3
weeks.

Cheers,

Matthew

_______________________________________________
SciPy-Dev mailing list
SciPy-Dev@scipy.org
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev