+10 Very well written down ideas Jaime. 2015-08-28 6:59 GMT+02:00 Jaime Fernández del Río <jaime.f...@gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:06 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:23 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Brett < >> matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett >> >> > <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> > I don't really see a problem with "codifying" the status quo. >> >> >> >> >> >> That's an excellent point. If we believe that the current >> situation >> >> >> is the best possible, both now and in the future, then codifying the >> >> >> status quo is an excellent idea. >> >> >> >> >> >> So, we should probably first start by asking ourselves: >> >> >> >> >> >> * what numpy is doing well; >> >> >> * what numpy could do better; >> >> >> >> >> >> and then ask, is there some way we could make it more likely we will >> >> >> improve over time. >> >> >> >> >> >> [snip] >> >> >> >> >> >> > As the current debate shows it's possible to have a public >> discussion >> >> >> > about >> >> >> > the direction of the project without having to delegate providing >> a >> >> >> > vision >> >> >> > to a president. >> >> >> >> >> >> The idea of a president that I had in mind, was not someone who >> makes >> >> >> all decisions, but the person who holds themselves responsible for >> the >> >> >> performance of the project. If the project has a coherent vision >> >> >> already, the president has no need to provide one, but it's the >> >> >> president's job to worry about whether we have vision or not, and do >> >> >> what they need to, to make sure we don't lose track of that. If >> you >> >> >> don't know it already, I highly recommend Jim Collins' work on >> 'level >> >> >> 5 leadership' [1] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Still doesn't sound like the need for a president to me >> >> > >> >> > " the person who holds themselves responsible for the >> >> > performance of the project" >> >> > >> >> > sounds more like the role of the "core" group (adding plural to >> persons) >> >> > to >> >> > me, and cannot be pushed of to an official president. >> >> >> >> Except that, in the past, having multiple people taking decisions has >> >> led to the situation where no-one feels themselves accountable for the >> >> result, hence this situation tends to lead to stagnation. >> > >> > >> > Is there any evidence for this? >> >> Oh - dear - that's the key point, but I'm obviously not making it >> clearly enough. Yes there is, and that was the evidence I was >> pointing to before. >> >> But anyway - Sebastian is right - this discussion isn't going anywhere >> useful. >> >> So - let's step back. >> >> In thinking about governance, we first need to ask what we want to >> achieve. This includes considering the risks ahead for the project. >> >> So, in the spirit of fruitful discussion, can I ask what y'all >> consider to be the current problems with working on numpy (other than >> the technical ones). What is numpy doing well, and what is it doing >> badly? What risks do we have to plan for in the future? >> > > <joke> > Are you trying to prove the point that consensus doesn't work by making it > impossible to reach a consensus on this? ;-) > </joke> > > One thing we are doing very badly is leveraging resources outside of > contributions of work and time from individuals. Getting sponsors to > finance work on what is the cornerstone of just about any Python package > that has to add two numbers together shouldn't be too hard, especially > seeing success stories like Jupyter's, who I believe has several paid > developers working full time. That requires formalizing governance, > because apparently sponsors are a little wary of giving money to "people on > the internet". ;-) Fernando Pérez was extremely emphatic about the size of > the opportunity NumPy was letting slip by not formalizing *any* governance > model. And it is a necessary first step so that e.g. we have the money to, > say a year from now, get the right people together for a couple of days to > figure out a better governance model. I'd argue that money would be better > spent financing a talented developer to advance e.g. Nathaniel's new dtype > system to end all dtype systems, but that's a different story. > > Largely because of the above, even if Nathaniel's document involved > tossing a coin to resolve disputes, I'd rather have that now than something > much better never. Because there really is no alternative to Nathaniel's > write-up of the status quo, other than the status quo without a write-up: > it has taken him two months to put this draft together, **after** we agreed > over several hours of face to face discussion on what the model should be. > And I'm sure he has hated every minute he has had to put into it. So if we > keep going around this in circles, after a few days we will all grow tired > and go back to fighting over whether indexing should transpose subspaces or > not, and all that other cool stuff we really enjoy. And a year from now we > will be in the same place we are now, only a year older and deeper in > (technical) debt. > > Jaime > > -- > (\__/) > ( O.o) > ( > <) Este es Conejo. Copia a Conejo en tu firma y ayúdale en sus planes > de dominación mundial. > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > -- Francesc Alted
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
