On Mo, 2015-09-21 at 11:32 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote: > On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the > > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is > > very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is > > chosen. > > > > Hmmm, well I never had the impression that the steering council would be > huge. But maybe you are right, and if it is, I could imagine something > like option 2, but vote based (could possibly dual use those in charge > of NumFOCUS relations, we had even discussed this possibility) which > would have final say if necessary (could mean that the contributers > definition could be broadened a bit). > However, I am not sure this is what you suggested, because for me it > should be a regular vote (if just because I am scared of having to make > the right pick). And while I will not block this if others agree, I am > currently not comfortable with either picking a BDFL (sorry guys :P) or > very fond of an oligarchy for live. > > Anyway, I still don't claim to have a good grasp on these things, but > without a vote, it seems a bit what Matthew warned about. > > One thing I could imagine is something like an "Advisory Board", without > (much) formal power. If we had a voted Steering Council, it could be the > former members + old time contributers which we would choose now. These > could be invited to meetings at the very least. > > Just my current, probably not well thought out thoughts on the matter. > But neither of your three options feel very obvious to me unfortunately. > > - Sebastian > > > > A one year time frame is pretty short on the context of a two decades > > old project and I believe the current council has too few people who > > have been around the community long enough to help unstuck difficult > > situations if that were necessary. > > > > I would recommend three possible adjustments to the steering council > > concept. > > > > 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris > > > > 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, > > and pauli. > > > > 3 - add me as a permanent member of the steering council. > >
Though, maybe you should be in the steering council in any case even by the current rules. Maybe you were not too active for a while, but I doubt you will quite stop doing stuff on numpy soon.... > > Writing NumPy was a significant amount of work. I have been working > > indirectly or directly in support of NumPy continously since I wrote > > it. While I don't actively participate all the time, I still have a > > lot of knowledge, context, and experience in how NumPy is used, why it > > is the way it is, and how things could be better. I also work with > > people directly who have and will contribute regularly. > > > > I am formally requesting that the steering council concept be adjusted > > in one of these three ways. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Travis > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
