Hi, On Thu, Feb 16, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > > Matthew, > > What you should take from my post is that I appreciate your concern for the > future of the NumPy project, and am grateful that you have an eye to the sort > of things that can go wrong --- it will help ensure they don't go wrong. > > But, I personally don't agree that it is necessary to put any more formal > structure in place at this time, and we should wait for 6-12 months, and see > where we are at while doing everything we can to get more people interested > in contributing to the project. I'm comfortable playing the role of BDF12 > with a cadre of developers/contributors who seeks to come to consensus. I > believe there are sufficient checks on the process that will make it quite > difficult for me to *abuse* that in the short term. Charles, Rolf, Mark, > David, Robert, Josef, you, and many others are already quite adept at calling > me out when I do things they don't like or think are problematic. I > encourage them to continue this. I can't promise I'll do everything you > want, but I can promise I will listen and take your opinions seriously --- > just like I take the opinions of every contributor to the NumPy and SciPy > lists seriously (though weighted by the work-effort they have put on the > project). > We can all only continue to do our best to help out wherever we can. > > Just so we are clear: Continuum's current major client is the larger > NumPy/SciPy community itself and this will remain the case for at least > several months. You have nothing to fear from "other clients" we are > trying to please. Thus, we are incentivized to keep as many people happy as > possible. In the second place, the Foundation's major client is the same > community (and even broader) and the rest of the board is committed to the > overall success of the ecosystem. There is a reason the board is comprised > of a wide-representation of that eco-system. I am very hopeful that > numfocus will evolve over time to have an active community of people who > participate in it's processes and plans to support as many projects as it can > given the bandwidth and funding available to it. > > So, if I don't participate in this discussion, anymore, it's because I am > working on some open-source things I'd like to show at PyCon, and time is > clicking down. If you really feel strongly about this, then I would > suggest that you come up with a proposal for governance that you would like > us all to review. At the SciPy conference in Austin this summer we can talk > about it --- when many of us will be face-to-face.
This has not been an encouraging episode in striving for consensus. I see virtually no movement from your implied position at the beginning of this thread, other than the following 1) yes you are in charge 2) you'll consider other options in 6 to 12 months. I think you're saying here that you won't reply any more on this thread, and I suppose that reflects the importance you attach to this problem. I will not myself propose a governance model because I do not consider myself to have enough influence (on various metrics) to make it likely it would be supported. I wish that wasn't my perception of how things are done here. Best, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
