Hi, On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav@iki.fi> wrote:
Interesting discussion so far!
Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:03:43 -0800, Matthew Brett kirjoitti: [clip]
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?
For the technical aspect, this sounds something like the Scipy roadmap (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/ROADMAP.rst.txt), and the discussion leading to it, in conferences and online in public.
Something like regular prompts for discussion of technical and organisation roadmap could be useful. At minimum, this could be simply a (bi-?)yearly post on the mailing list, to remind to update the roadmap and to summarize / bring up / discuss any relevant organisation updates / issues in the preceding period.
I quite like this idea. Documents like a roadmap can easily go out of date if they're not actively maintained. Having a critical look at it once or twice a year will be helpful. Also +1 for adding some organizational items to it (I'm thinking CoC, FSA, etc. should have been on there).
The list of people on the steering committee also needs to be updated with this kind of frequency.
How about doing this around 1 January and 1 July every year?
I'm not sensing a lot of enthusiasm for the fixed-term/election idea,
I'm afraid the previous discussion on this thread has made it very unlikely that you would see any enthusiasm, even if, in another world, it was a good idea. That's the tragedy of mailing list discussions, as satirized here http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939 and evident from the recent discussion on the Jupyter governance document. If anyone gets angry or dismissive about an idea, and that isn't addressed, that's a very effective way of inducing consent and shutting down the discussion. Cheers, Matthew