[Numpy-discussion] Governance model request

Matthew Brett matthew.brett at gmail.com
Tue Sep 22 14:48:57 EDT 2015


Hi,

On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 11:20 AM, 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.

I'm also in favor of taking a step back.

The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has
to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account.  They
also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest.

It is the opposite of sensible, to respond to this with 'how dare you"
or by asserting that this could never happen or by saying that we
shouldn't talk about that in case people get frightened.  I point you
again to Linus' interview [1].  He is not upset that he has been
insulted by the implication of conflict of interest, he soberly
accepts that this will always be an issue, with companies in
particular, and goes out of his way to address that in an explicit and
reasonable way.

Cheers,

Matthew

[1] http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-18419231



More information about the NumPy-Discussion mailing list