Hi, Just for my own sake, can I clarify what you are saying here?
On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > I'm not a big fan of design-by-committee as I haven't seen it be very > successful in creating new technologies. It is pretty good at enforcing the > status-quo. If I felt like that is what NumPy needed I would be fine with it. Was it your impression that what was being proposed, was design by committee? > However, I feel that NumPy is going to be surpassed with other solutions if > steps are not taken to improve the code-base *and* add new features. As far as you are concerned, is there any controversy about that? > For the next 6-12 months, I am comfortable taking the "benevolent dictator > role". During that time, I hope we can find many more core developers and > then re-visit the discussion. My view is that design decisions should be a > consensus based on current contributors to the code base and major users. > To continue to be relevant, NumPy has to serve it's customers. They are the > ones who will have the final say. If others feel like they can do better, a > fork is an option. I don't want that to happen, but it is the only effective > and practical "governance" structure that exists in my mind outside of the > self-governance of the people that participate. To confirm, you are saying that you can imagine no improvement in the current governance structure? > No organizational structure can make up for the lack of great people putting > their hearts and efforts into a great cause. But you agree that there might be an organizational structure that would make this harder or easier? Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
