[SciPy-Dev] SciPy governance model

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:
>
> Interesting discussion so far!
>
>>
>>
>> Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:03:43 -0800, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
>> [clip]
>> > What do you think about the idea of having regular state-of-scipy
>> > reviews to make sure we're conscious about keeping on track, assessing
>> > risks, improving process?
>>
>> For the technical aspect, this sounds something like the Scipy roadmap
>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/ROADMAP.rst.txt), and the
>> discussion leading to it, in conferences and online in public.
>>
>> Something like regular prompts for discussion of technical and
>> organisation roadmap could be useful. At minimum, this could be simply a
>> (bi-?)yearly post on the mailing list, to remind to update the roadmap
>> and to summarize / bring up / discuss any relevant organisation updates /
>> issues in the preceding period.
>
>
> I quite like this idea. Documents like a roadmap can easily go out of date
> if they're not actively maintained. Having a critical look at it once or
> twice a year will be helpful. Also +1 for adding some organizational items
> to it (I'm thinking CoC, FSA, etc. should have been on there).
>
> The list of people on the steering committee also needs to be updated with
> this kind of frequency.
>
> How about doing this around 1 January and 1 July every year?
>
> I'm not sensing a lot of enthusiasm for the fixed-term/election idea,

I'm afraid the previous discussion on this thread has made it very
unlikely that you would see any enthusiasm, even if, in another world,
it was a good idea.  That's the tragedy of mailing list discussions,
as satirized here

http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939

and evident from the recent discussion on the Jupyter governance
document. If anyone gets angry or dismissive about an idea, and that
isn't addressed, that's a very effective way of inducing consent and
shutting down the discussion.

Cheers,

Matthew