On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:47 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> >> >> wrote: >> >> > On 2015/09/04 10:53 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Brett >> >> >> <matthew.br...@gmail.com> >> >> >> wrote: >> >> >>> Hi, >> >> >>> >> >> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Chris Barker >> >> >>> <chris.bar...@noaa.gov> >> >> >>> wrote: >> >> >>>> 1) I very much agree that governance can make or break a project. >> >> >>>> However, >> >> >>>> the actual governance approach often ends up making less >> >> >>>> difference >> >> >>>> than the >> >> >>>> people involved. >> >> >>>> >> >> >>>> 2) While the FreeBSD and XFree examples do point to some real >> >> >>>> problems with >> >> >>>> the "core" model it seems that there are many other projects that >> >> >>>> are >> >> >>>> using >> >> >>>> it quite successfully. >> >> >> >> >> >> I was just rereading the complaints about the 'core' structure from >> >> >> high-level NetBSD project leaders: >> >> >> >> >> >> "[the "core" and "board of directors"] teams are dysfunctional >> >> >> because >> >> >> they do not provide leadership: all they do is act reactively to >> >> >> requests from users and/or to resolve internal disputes. In other >> >> >> words: there is no initiative nor vision emerging from these teams >> >> >> (and, for that matter, from anybody)." [1] >> >> >> >> >> >> "There is no high-level direction; if you ask "what about the >> >> >> problems >> >> >> with threads" or "will there be a flash-friendly file system", the >> >> >> best you'll get is "we'd love to have both" -- but no work is done >> >> >> to >> >> >> recruit people to code these things, or encourage existing >> >> >> developers >> >> >> to work on them." [2] >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > This is consistent with Chris's first point. >> >> >> >> Do you mean Chris' point that "I very much agree that governance can >> >> make or break a project"? Charles Hannum's complaints about NetBSD >> >> are very specific in blaming the model rather than the people. I >> >> think the XFree86 story supports the same conclusion - that the >> >> governance model caused a sense of diffused responsibility that lead >> >> to bad decisions and lack of direction. >> >> >> >> >> I imagine we will have to reconcile ourselves to similar problems, >> >> >> if >> >> >> we adopt the same structures. >> >> > >> >> > Do you have suggestions as to who would make a good numpy president >> >> > or >> >> > BDFL and potentially has the time and inclination to do it, or how to >> >> > identify and recruit such a person? >> >> >> >> That's a good question, and the answer is that in the current >> >> situation (zero interest in this discussion from the three current >> >> members of the numpy leadership team) - no reasonable person would be >> >> interested in that job. That's the situation we're in, and so we >> >> have to accept that nothing is going to change, with the consequences >> >> that implies. If the situation were different, and we had the >> >> interest or commitment to explore this problem, then I guess we could >> >> discuss other options including the one I suggested further up the >> >> thread. >> > >> > >> > " >> > >> > Today, the project is run by a different cabal. This is the result of a >> > coup that took place in 2000-2001, in which The NetBSD Foundation was >> > taken over by a fraudulent change of the board of directors. (Note: >> > It's probably too late for me to pursue any legal remedy for this, >> > unfortunately.) Although "The NetBSD Project" and "The NetBSD >> > Foundation" were intended from the start to be separate entities -- the >> > latter supplying support infrastructure for the former -- this >> > distinction has been actively blurred since, so that the current "board" >> > of TNF has rather tight control over many aspects of TNP. >> > >> > " >> > >> > " >> > >> > The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with >> > an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle >> > administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs. >> > >> > " >> > >> > >> > It doesn't sound to me like a developer and community driven governance >> > structure to me. >> >> I think that's a separate issue - the distinction between the 'board' >> and the 'core'. It would be great if the 'core' concept was fine as >> long as there is no 'board' but I think that's a hard argument to >> make. > > > there is an "esprit de corps" pronounced "esprit de core" but not an "esprit > de board" > > I trust the core developers, but not ... > > But maybe I don't understand some definitions > > " > > The "core" group must be replaced with people who are actually > competent and dedicated enough to review proposals, accept feedback, > and make good decisions. > > " > > I thought that's what the "core" group is.
To avoid repeating myself any more than I have already - see further up this thread : http://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/numpy-discussion/2015-August/073452.html Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
