[Numpy-discussion] Let's move forward with the current governance document.

[Travis Oliphant]

Hi everyone,

After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the
discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth.
Nothing matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.

So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance
model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council.
The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy
and will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the
community over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a
year if difficulties arise with the model.

If my voice and other strong voices remain outside the council, perhaps we
can all encourage that the intended community governance of NumPy does in
fact happen, and most decisions continue to be made in the open.

I had the pleasure last night of meeting one of the new NumPy core
contributors, Allan Haldane. This only underscored my confidence in
everyone who is contributing to NumPy today. This confidence has already
been established by watching the great contributions of many talented
developers who have given their time and talents to the project over the
past several years.

I hope that we can move on from the governance discussion and continue to
promote the success of the project together.

Best,

-Travis

[Nathaniel Smith]

Post by Travis Oliphant
Hi everyone,
After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading the
discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth. Nothing
matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the governance
model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering council.
The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy and
will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the community
over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a year if
difficulties arise with the model.

Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your
confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you
around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your
efforts -- they're very much appreciated.

I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and
that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm
avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue
to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do
that using the mechanisms described in the document itself.

I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
first posted:

https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits

I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
do the honors?

-n

[Charles R Harris]

Post by Travis Oliphant

Post by Travis Oliphant
Hi everyone,
After some further thought and spending quite a bit of time re-reading

the

Post by Travis Oliphant
discussion on a few threads, I now believe that my request to be on the
steering council might be creating more trouble than it's worth.

Nothing

Post by Travis Oliphant
matters to me more than seeing NumPy continue to grow and improve.
So, I'm switching my position to supporting the adoption of the

governance

Post by Travis Oliphant
model outlined and just contributing as I can outside the steering

council.

Post by Travis Oliphant
The people on the steering council are committed to the success of NumPy

and

Post by Travis Oliphant
will do a great job --- they already have in contributing to the

community

Post by Travis Oliphant
over the past year(s). We can always revisit the question in a year if
difficulties arise with the model.

Wow -- I can't imagine this was an easy decision, but I share your
confidence that it will work out -- esp. since we'll still have you
around to contribute wisdom when necessary :-). Thank you for your
efforts -- they're very much appreciated.
I believe this means all outstanding issues have been addressed, and
that we can now declare the governance document to be ready. I'm
avoiding using the word "finished" because of course we can continue
to adapt it as necessary -- but from this point on I think we can do
that using the mechanisms described in the document itself.
I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
do the honors?

I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready.

Chuck

[Nathaniel Smith]

On Sun, Oct 4, 2015 at 4:14 PM, Charles R Harris
[...]

Post by Charles R Harris

Post by Nathaniel Smith
I've just updated the governance document pull request with final
formatting tweaks, in case anyone wants to review the current text or
the (very minor and boring) changes that have been made since it was
https://github.com/numpy/numpy/pull/6352/commits
I think that PR is now ready to merge -- Chuck, perhaps you'd like to
do the honors?

I've added a few comments. It looks almost ready.

Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
:-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
substantive comes up.

-n

[Sturla Molden]

Post by Nathaniel Smith
Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
:-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
substantive comes up.

Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate
of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or
two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how
much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto
rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as
my contributions are minute... OMG.


Sturla

[Nathaniel Smith]

Post by Sturla Molden

Post by Nathaniel Smith
Thanks Chuck! It looks like it's just wording tweaks / clarifications
at this point, so nothing we need to discuss in detail on the list. If
anyone wants to watch the sausage being made, then the link is above
:-), and we'll continue the discussion in the PR unless anything
substantive comes up.

Anyone has a veto? That reminds me of something that happened in the senate
of Rome; they only had a small number of vetoers, sometimes only one or
two, and even that caused havoc. I think it should be better clarified how
much contribution is needed before someone can be considered to have veto
rights. It would e.g. be ridiculous if I were to begin and veto stuff, as
my contributions are minute... OMG.

Are you planning to go around vetoing things for ridiculous reasons
and causing havoc?

If so, then notice that the steering council reserves the right to
kick you out ;-). And if not, then who is it that you're worried
about?

-n

[Sturla Molden]

Post by Nathaniel Smith
Are you planning to go around vetoing things

I don't consider myself qualified.

Post by Nathaniel Smith
for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?

That would be unpolite.

Post by Nathaniel Smith
And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?

I am not sure :)

I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)


Sturla

[Benjamin Root]

There is the concept of consensus-driven development, which centers on veto
rights. It does assume that all actors are driven by a common goal to
improve the project. For example, the fact that we didn't have consensus
back during the whole NA brouhaha was actually a good thing because IMHO
including NA into NumPy would have hurt the community more than it would
have helped.

Ben Root

Post by Sturla Molden

Post by Nathaniel Smith
Are you planning to go around vetoing things

I don't consider myself qualified.

Post by Nathaniel Smith
for ridiculous reasons and causing havoc?

That would be unpolite.

Post by Nathaniel Smith
And if not, then who is it that you're worried about?

I am not sure :)
I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)
Sturla
_______________________________________________
NumPy-Discussion mailing list
https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion

[Chris Barker]

Post by Sturla Molden
I just envisioned a Roman patron shouting veto or a US senator
filibustering. Expulsion would be the appropriate recation, yes :-)

Oh if only the US Senate could expulse people!

-sigh
--
Christopher Barker, Ph.D.
Oceanographer

Emergency Response Division
NOAA/NOS/OR&R [phone] voice
7600 Sand Point Way NE [phone] fax
Seattle, WA 98115 [phone] main reception

***@noaa.gov