[python-committers] An alternative governance model
p.f.moore at gmail.com
Wed Jul 18 04:05:23 EDT 2018
I also agree 100% with Barry's proposal. I think he's absolutely right
that one of the important features of Python (both the language and
the community) is the single focus and vision of the BDFL, and reading
Barry's mail crystallised for me the unease I felt about the proposals
around a Council, which is precisely that they wouldn't provide that
unified vision. Having a council acting as support for the NBDFL gives
the best of both worlds.
Strong +1 all round.
I too would love to hear Brett's thoughts, but he definitely has my
support if he feels able to take on the role.
On 18 July 2018 at 04:20, Carol Willing <willingc at gmail.com> wrote:
> I wholeheartedly agree with Barry's suggestion.
> It offers a single person who can communicate the design vision. While the
> support of a council will help spread out the work and provides a great way
> to grow future leaders and a smooth transition if for any reason (family,
> work, health, etc.) the new BDFL has to take a break.
> On Tue, Jul 17, 2018, 7:38 PM Ned Deily <nad at python.org> wrote:
>> On Jul 17, 2018, at 22:15, Eric V. Smith <eric at trueblade.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/17/2018 10:02 PM, Barry Warsaw wrote:
>> >> I’d like to propose an alternative model, and with it a succession
>> >> plan, that IMHO hasn’t gotten enough discussion. It’s fairly radical in
>> >> that it proposes to not actually change that much!
>> >> TL;DR: I propose keeping a singular BDFL and adding a Council of
>> >> Advisors that helps the BDFL in various capacities, with additional
>> >> responsibilities. I also have someone specific in mind for the NBDFL, but
>> >> you’ll have to read on for the big reveal.
>> > I've come to this same conclusion. I think Brett would be a good choice,
>> > and I'd support him, but I think the more important part is that it be a
>> > single person.
>> +100. I think Python owes much of its success to both Guido's ongoing
>> vision *and* his clear role as leader. Up to now, we have not had much
>> experience governing by committee or council and I think it may be a mistake
>> to try to implement that now (although we *do* have some successful
>> experience with informal council of advisors models, for instance, in the
>> release management area). While it wouldn't necessarily be a good choice
>> for many (most?) open-source projects, I think the NBDFL-plus-advisors model
>> would work well in the relatively congenial and respectful environment of
>> the current Python committers community. That's not to say that we won't
>> collectively decide down the road that we want to try something different
>> but trying to keep this really important transition (i.e. from Guido) as
>> simple as possible initially would be a really smart thing to do.
>> > And I think the succession plan is important, too. I think Łukasz was
>> > alluding to this earlier (or maybe I'm projecting): who's to say that the
>> > next BDFL is legitimate? If we put together a plan, and Guido blesses it,
>> > that makes the plan legitimate, and then the plan gets executed and makes
>> > NBDFL legitimate.
>> That, too.
>> Ned Deily
>> nad at python.org -- 
>> python-committers mailing list
>> python-committers at python.org
>> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
> python-committers mailing list
> python-committers at python.org
> Code of Conduct: https://www.python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
More information about the python-committers