Hi, On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 9:47 PM, Dag Sverre Seljebotn <d.s.seljeb...@astro.uio.no> wrote: > On 02/15/2012 05:02 PM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> 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. >> >> Ouch. Is that me, one of the non-contributing users? Was I >> suggesting that we set up a system to select non-developers to a >> board? I must say, now you mention it, I do feel a bit ridiculous. > > In retrospect I was unfair and my email way too harsh. Anyway, I'm > really happy with your follow-up in turning this into something more > constructive.
Don't worry - thanks for this reply. >> You believe, I suppose, that there are no significant risks in nearly >> all the numpy core development being done by a new company, or at >> least, that there can little benefit to a governance discussion in >> that situation. I think you are wrong, but of course it's a tenable >> point of view, > > The question is more about what can possibly be done about it. To really > shift power, my hunch is that the only practical way would be to, like > Mark said, make sure there are very active non-Continuum-employed > developers. But perhaps I'm wrong. It's not obvious to me that there isn't a set of guidelines, procedures, structures that would help to keep things clear in this situation. Obviously it would be good to have more non-Continuum developers, but also obviously, there is a risk that that won't happen. > Sometimes it is worth taking some risks because it means one can go > forward faster. Possibly *a lot* faster, if one shifts things from email > to personal communication. Yes, obviously it's in no-one's interest to slow down the Continuum developers. I wonder though whether there is a way of organizing things, that does not slow down the Continuum developers, but does keep the sense of community involvement and ownership. > It is not like the current versions of NumPy disappear. If things do go > wrong and NumPy is developed in some crazy direction, it's easy to go > for the stagnated option simply by taking the current release and > maintain bugfixes on it. But we all want to avoid a fork, which is what that could easily become. See you, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion