On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 10:04 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:35 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote: >> Hi, >> >> On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk >> <m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > Hi Matthew, >> > >> > > it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring >> > > blueprint with a relatively small amount of effort. >> > >> > 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! >> > >> > 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. Indeed, it may be that the >> > old >> > adage "every initiative is punishable" holds here... >> >> I understand what you're saying, but I think a more helpful way of >> thinking of it, is putting the groundwork in place for the most >> fruitful possible collaboration. >> >> > would you, or one >> > of the others who feels it is important to have a blueprint, be >> > willing to provide a concrete text for discussion? >> >> It doesn't make sense for me to do that, I'm #13 for commits in the >> last year. I'm just one of the many people who completely depend on >> numpy. Also, taking a little time to think these things through >> seems >> like a small investment with the potential for significant gain, in >> terms of improving communication and mitigating risk. >> >> So, I think my suggestion is that it would be a good idea for >> Nathaniel and the current steering committee to talk through how this >> is going to play out, how the work will be selected and directed, and >> so on. >> > > Frankly, I would suggest to wait for now and ask whoever is going to > get the job to work out how they think it should be handled. And then > we complain if we expect more/better ;).
This is roughly where I am as well. Certainly this is an important issue, but we've already done a lot of groundwork in the abstract – the dev meeting, formalizing the governance document, and so forth (and recall that "let's get to a point where we can apply for grants" was explicitly one of the goals in those discussions). I think at this point the most productive thing to do is wait until we have a more concrete picture of who/what/when will be happening, so we can make a concrete plan. > For now I only would say that I will expect more community type of work > then we now often manage to do. And things such as meticulously > sticking to writing NEPs. > So the only thing I can see that might be good is putting "community > work" or something like it specifically as part of the job description, Definitely. > and thats up to Nathaniel probably. > > Some things like not merging large changes by two people sittings in > the same office should be obvious (and even if it happens, we can > revert). But its nothing much new there I think. -n -- Nathaniel J. Smith -- https://vorpus.org _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
