[Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

[Benjamin Root]

To expand on Ryan's point a bit about recusal... this is why we have a
general policy against self-merging and why peer review is so valuable. A
ban on self-merging is much like recusal, and I think it is a fantastic
policy.

As for a BDFL, I used to like that idea having seen it work well for Linux
and Python, but I have found it at odds with the policy of recusal and no
self-merging. That said, as I am sure Thomas Caswell can attest, a
non-self-merging policy can result in a lot of ideas getting stalled,
waiting for review that may or may not happen. I don't know what the
solution is, but I am sympathetic to those who are apprehensive about a
BDFL -- regardless of who is in that role.

Ben Root


On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt <stefanv at berkeley.edu>
wrote:

> Hi Travis
>
> On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant <travis at continuum.io> wrote:
> > I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my
> > intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my
> > resources, and my sleep to NumPy for many, many years.    I guess if your
> > intent is to drive me away, then you are succeeding.
>
> I guess we've gone off the rails pretty far at this point, so let me at
> least take a step back, and make sure that you know that:
>
> - I have never doubted that your intensions for NumPy are anything but
>   good (I know they are!),
> - I *want* the community to be a welcoming place for companies to
>   contribute (otherwise, I guess I'd not be such a fervent supporter of
>   the scientific eco-system using the BSD license), and
> - I love your enthusiasm for the project.  After all, that is a big part
>   of what inspired me to become involved in the first place.
>
> My goal is not to spread uncertainty, fear nor doubt—if that was the
> perception left, I apologize.
>
> I'll re-iterate that I wanted to highlight a concern about the
> interactions of a (somewhat weakly cohesive) community and strong,
> driven personalities such as yourself backed by a formidable amount of
> development power.  No matter how good your intensions are, there are
> risks involved in this kind of interaction, and if we fail to even
> *admit* that, we are in trouble.
>
> Lest the above be read in a negative light again, let me state it
> up-front: *I don't think you will hijack the project, use it for your
> own gain, or attempt to do anything you don't believe to be in the best
> interest of NumPy.* What I'm saying is that we absolutely need to move
> forward in a way that brings everyone along, and makes everyone rest
> assured that their voice will be heard.
>
> Also, please know that I have not discussed these matters with Nathaniel
> behind the scenes, other than an informal hour-long discussion about his
> original governance proposal.  There is no BIDS conspiracy or attempts
> at crucifixion.  After all, you were an invited guest speaker at an
> event I organized this weekend, since I value your opinion and insights.
>
> Either way, let me again apologize if my suggested lack of insight hurt
> people's feelings.  I can only hope that, in educating me, we all learn
> a few lessons.
>
> Stéfan
> _______________________________________________
> NumPy-Discussion mailing list
> NumPy-Discussion at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/attachments/20150922/8ed97517/attachment.html>