I like the idea of trying to reach consensus first. The only point of having a board is to have someway to resolve issues should consensus not be reachable. Believe me, I'm not that excited about a separate mailing list. It would be great if we could resolve everything on a single list.
-Travis On Dec 3, 2011, at 9:42 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi Travis, > > On Sat, Dec 3, 2011 at 6:18 PM, Travis Oliphant <teoliph...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Hi everyone, >> >> There have been some wonderfully vigorous discussions over the past few >> months that have made it clear that we need some clarity about how decisions >> will be made in the NumPy community. >> >> When we were a smaller bunch of people it seemed easier to come to an >> agreement and things pretty much evolved based on (mostly) consensus and who >> was available to actually do the work. >> >> There is a need for a more clear structure so that we know how decisions >> will get made and so that code can move forward while paying attention to >> the current user-base. There has been a "steering committee" structure for >> SciPy in the past, and I have certainly been prone to lump both NumPy and >> SciPy together given that I have a strong interest in and have spent a great >> amount of time working on both projects. Others have also spent time on >> both projects. >> >> However, I think it is critical at this stage to clearly separate the >> projects and define a governing structure that is fair and agreeable for >> NumPy. SciPy has multiple modules and will probably need structure around >> each module independently. For now, I wanted to open up a discussion to >> see what people thought about NumPy's governance. >> >> My initial thoughts: >> >> * discussions happen as they do now on the mailing list >> * a small group of developers (5-11) constitute the "board" and major >> decisions are made by vote of that group (not just simple majority --- needs >> at least 2/3 +1 votes). >> * votes are +1/+0/-0/-1 >> * if a topic is difficult to resolve it is moved off the main list >> and discussed on a separate "board" mailing list --- these should be rare, >> but parts of the NA discussion would probably qualify >> * This board mailing list is "publically" viewable but only board >> members may post. >> * The board is renewed and adjusted each year --- based on nomination >> and 2/3 vote of the current board until board is at 11. >> * The chairman of the board is voted by a majority of the board and >> has veto power unless over-ridden by 3/4 of the board. >> * Petitions to remove people off the board can be made by 50+ >> independent reverse nominations (hopefully people will just withdraw if they >> are no longer active). > > Thanks very much for starting this discussion. > > You have probably seen that my preference would be for all discussions > to be public - in the sense that all can contribute. So, it seems > reasonable to me to have 'board' as you describe, but that the board > should vote on the same mailing list as the rest of the discussion. > Having a separate mailing list for discussion makes the separation > overt between those with a granted voice and those without, and I > would hope for a structure which emphasized discsussion in an open > forum. > > Put another way, what advantage would having a separate public mailing > list have? > > How does this governance compare to that of - say - Linux or Python or Debian? > > My worry will be that it will be too tempting to terminate discussions > and proceed to resolve by vote, when voting (as Karl Vogel describes) > may still do harm. > > What will be the position - maybe I mean your position - on consensus > as Nathaniel has described it? I feel the masked array discussion > would have been more productive (an maybe shorter and more to the > point) if there had been some rule-of-thumb that every effort is made > to reach consensus before proceeding to implementation - or a vote. > > For example, in the masked array discussion, I would have liked to be > able to say 'hold on, we have a rule that we try our best to reach > consensus; I do not feel we have done that yet'. > > See you, > > Matthew > > I guess that the > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion --- Travis Oliphant Enthought, Inc. oliph...@enthought.com 1-512-536-1057 http://www.enthought.com _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
