Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Alan G Isaac <alan.is...@gmail.com> wrote: > On 2/15/2012 2:46 PM, Benjamin Root wrote: >> The NA discussion is the perfect example where a governance structure would >> help resolve disputes. > > > How? I'm not seeing it. > Who would have behaved differently and why?
Let's say that we had a formal commitment to consensus (where possible): http://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html I believe that would have fundamentally changed the discussion, and would have led to a better result. Next, imagine (sorry, I'm replying partly to Ben here) that there was no such commitment, but there was a group of people who know the code, who's job it was to review both sides of a dispute, summarize their understanding, and then vote. I believe that all of us, whatever the result, would have accepted that that was the procedure, and the discussion would have been able to move on. However, what did happen was it seems to me characteristic of the situation where it is unclear how decisions get made, which is that it becomes possible to force outcomes (there's no-one to stop that). That's why we have governments, to reduce the arbitrary use of power. It believe it makes society more efficient when we do that. But in any case, the situation has changed. Now the economic interests of the main numpy developers can come into conflict with the needs of the community. I'm not saying they will, I'm saying they can. In that situation, it seems to me that it is of obvious and overriding importance to specify how decisions are made. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
