To expand on Ryan's point a bit about recusal... this is why we have a general policy against self-merging and why peer review is so valuable. A ban on self-merging is much like recusal, and I think it is a fantastic policy.
As for a BDFL, I used to like that idea having seen it work well for Linux and Python, but I have found it at odds with the policy of recusal and no self-merging. That said, as I am sure Thomas Caswell can attest, a non-self-merging policy can result in a lot of ideas getting stalled, waiting for review that may or may not happen. I don't know what the solution is, but I am sympathetic to those who are apprehensive about a BDFL -- regardless of who is in that role. Ben Root On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 2:20 PM, Stefan van der Walt <stef...@berkeley.edu> wrote: > Hi Travis > > On 2015-09-22 03:44:12, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> wrote: > > I'm actually offended that so many at BIDS seem eager to crucify my > > intentions when I've done nothing but give away my time, my energy, my > > resources, and my sleep to NumPy for many, many years. I guess if your > > intent is to drive me away, then you are succeeding. > > I guess we've gone off the rails pretty far at this point, so let me at > least take a step back, and make sure that you know that: > > - I have never doubted that your intensions for NumPy are anything but > good (I know they are!), > - I *want* the community to be a welcoming place for companies to > contribute (otherwise, I guess I'd not be such a fervent supporter of > the scientific eco-system using the BSD license), and > - I love your enthusiasm for the project. After all, that is a big part > of what inspired me to become involved in the first place. > > My goal is not to spread uncertainty, fear nor doubt—if that was the > perception left, I apologize. > > I'll re-iterate that I wanted to highlight a concern about the > interactions of a (somewhat weakly cohesive) community and strong, > driven personalities such as yourself backed by a formidable amount of > development power. No matter how good your intensions are, there are > risks involved in this kind of interaction, and if we fail to even > *admit* that, we are in trouble. > > Lest the above be read in a negative light again, let me state it > up-front: *I don't think you will hijack the project, use it for your > own gain, or attempt to do anything you don't believe to be in the best > interest of NumPy.* What I'm saying is that we absolutely need to move > forward in a way that brings everyone along, and makes everyone rest > assured that their voice will be heard. > > Also, please know that I have not discussed these matters with Nathaniel > behind the scenes, other than an informal hour-long discussion about his > original governance proposal. There is no BIDS conspiracy or attempts > at crucifixion. After all, you were an invited guest speaker at an > event I organized this weekend, since I value your opinion and insights. > > Either way, let me again apologize if my suggested lack of insight hurt > people's feelings. I can only hope that, in educating me, we all learn > a few lessons. > > Stéfan > _______________________________________________ > 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