[Numpy-discussion] Numpy governance update

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 8:36 PM, Charles R Harris
<charlesr.harris at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:13 PM, Nathaniel Smith <njs at pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 5:17 PM, Travis Vaught <travis at vaught.net> wrote:
>> > On Feb 16, 2012, at 10:56 AM, Nathaniel Smith wrote:
>> >
>> >> Travis's proposal is that we go from a large number of self-selecting
>> >> people putting in little bits of time to a small number of designated
>> >> people putting in lots of time.
>> >
>> >
>> > That's not what Travis, or anyone else, proposed.
>>
>> Maybe I was unclear -- all I mean here is that if we suddenly have a
>> few people working full-time on numpy (as Travis proposed), then that
>> will cause two things:
>>  -- a massive increase in the total number of person-hours going into
>> numpy
>>  -- a smaller group of people will be responsible for a much larger
>> proportion of those person-hours
>> (and this is leaving aside the other ways that it can be difficult for
>> full-time developers and volunteers to interact -- the volunteers
>> aren't in the office, the full-timers may not have the patience to
>> wait for a long email-paced conversation before making a decision,
>> etc.)
>>
>> I think Travis' proposal is potentially a great thing, but it's not as
>> simple as just saying "hey we hired some people now our software will
>> be better". Ask Fred Brooks ;-)
>>
>
> What, you are invoking Fred Brooks for a team of, maybe, four? Numpy ain't
> OS/360.

For the general idea that you can't just translate person-hours of
effort into results? Yes, though do note the winky emoticon, which is
used to indicate that a statement is somewhat tongue in cheek ;-).

Do you have any thoughts on the actual content of my concerns? Do you
agree that there's a risk that in Travis's plan, you'll be losing out
on valuable input from non-core-contributors who are nonetheless
experts in particular areas?

-- Nathaniel