[Numpy-discussion] Comments on governance proposal (was: Notes from the numpy dev meeting at scipy 2015)

[Matthew Brett]

On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Eric Firing <efiring at hawaii.edu> wrote:
>> > On 2015/09/04 10:53 AM, Matthew Brett wrote:
>> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>> Hi,
>> >>>
>> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Chris Barker <chris.barker at noaa.gov>
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>> 1) I very much agree that governance can make or break a project.
>> >>>> However,
>> >>>> the actual governance approach often ends up making less difference
>> >>>> than the
>> >>>> people involved.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> 2) While the FreeBSD and XFree examples do point to some real
>> >>>> problems with
>> >>>> the "core" model it seems that there are many other projects that are
>> >>>> using
>> >>>> it quite successfully.
>> >>
>> >> I was just rereading the complaints about the 'core' structure from
>> >> high-level NetBSD project leaders:
>> >>
>> >> "[the "core" and "board of directors"] teams are dysfunctional because
>> >> they do not provide leadership: all they do is act reactively to
>> >> requests from users and/or to resolve internal disputes. In other
>> >> words: there is no initiative nor vision emerging from these teams
>> >> (and, for that matter, from anybody)." [1]
>> >>
>> >> "There is no high-level direction; if you ask "what about the problems
>> >> with threads" or "will there be a flash-friendly file system", the
>> >> best you'll get is "we'd love to have both" -- but no work is done to
>> >> recruit people to code these things, or encourage existing developers
>> >> to work on them." [2]
>> >
>> >
>> > This is consistent with Chris's first point.
>>
>> Do you mean Chris' point that "I very much agree that governance can
>> make or break a project"?   Charles Hannum's complaints about NetBSD
>> are very specific in blaming the model rather than the people.   I
>> think the XFree86 story supports the same conclusion - that the
>> governance model caused a sense of diffused responsibility that lead
>> to bad decisions and lack of direction.
>>
>> >> I imagine we will have to reconcile ourselves to similar problems, if
>> >> we adopt the same structures.
>> >
>> > Do you have suggestions as to who would make a good numpy president or
>> > BDFL and potentially has the time and inclination to do it, or how to
>> > identify and recruit such a person?
>>
>> That's a good question, and the answer is that in the current
>> situation (zero interest in this discussion from the three current
>> members of the numpy leadership team) - no reasonable person would be
>> interested in that job.   That's the situation we're in, and so we
>> have to accept that nothing is going to change, with the consequences
>> that implies.   If the situation were different, and we had the
>> interest or commitment to explore this problem, then I guess we could
>> discuss other options including the one I suggested further up the
>> thread.
>
>
> "
>
> Today, the project is run by a different cabal.  This is the result of a
> coup that took place in 2000-2001, in which The NetBSD Foundation was
> taken over by a fraudulent change of the board of directors.  (Note:
> It's probably too late for me to pursue any legal remedy for this,
> unfortunately.)  Although "The NetBSD Project" and "The NetBSD
> Foundation" were intended from the start to be separate entities -- the
> latter supplying support infrastructure for the former -- this
> distinction has been actively blurred since, so that the current "board"
> of TNF has rather tight control over many aspects of TNP.
>
> "
>
> "
>
> The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with
>    an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle
>    administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs.
>
> "
>
>
> It doesn't sound to me like a developer and community driven governance
> structure to me.

I think that's a separate issue - the distinction between the 'board'
and the 'core'.   It would be great if the 'core' concept was fine as
long as there is no 'board' but I think that's a hard argument to
make.

Cheers,

Matthew