On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of > interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone > who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a > superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a > suggestion for part of this blueprint! > This sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. As a practical matter, asking someone outside to approve changes is a good way to ensure that decisions are not short-circuited by offline discussions. But remember that per our governance procedures, we already require consensus for decision making. So I don't think we need an actual change here. I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I > haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I intend > to contribute much beyond this e-mail. I am also not worried about this, really not at all. NumPy already has governance procedures and a steering committee for handling exactly these sorts of concerns, should they arise (which I also consider extremely unlikely in the case of BIDS and their non-profit funder).
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
