Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 4:27 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 02/15/2012 02:24 PM, Mark Wiebe wrote:
>> There certainly is governance now, it's just informal. It's a >> combination of how the design discussions are carried out, how pull >> requests occur, and who has commit rights. > > +1 > > If non-contributing users came along on the Cython list demanding that > we set up a system to select non-developers along on a board that would > have discussions in order to veto pull requests, I don't know whether > we'd ignore it or ridicule it or try to show some patience, but we > certainly wouldn't take it seriously. In the spirit (as I read) of Dag's post, maybe we should accept that this thread is not going anywhere much, and summarize: The current situation is the following: Travis is de-facto BDFL for Numpy Disputes get resolved by convening an ad-hoc group of interested and / or active developers to resolve or vote, maybe off-list. How this happens is for Travis to call. I think that's reasonable? As far as I can make out, in favor of the current status quo with no significant modification are: Travis (is that right)? Mark Peter Bryan vdv Perry Dag In favor of some sort of formalization of governance to be decided are: Me Ben R (did I get that right?) Bruce Southey Souheil Inati TJ Joe H I am not quite sure which side of that fence are: Josef Alan Chuck If I missed someone who gave an opinion - sorry - please do speak up. I think it's clear that if - you, Travis, don't want to go this direction, there isn't much chance of anything happening, and I think those of us who think something needs doing will have to keep quiet, as Dag suggests. I would only suggest that you (Travis) specify that you will take the BDFL role so that we can be clear about the informal governance at least. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
