On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 10:55 PM, Bryan Van de Ven <bry...@continuum.io> wrote:
> > > On Sep 22, 2015, at 1:48 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > The point is, that a sensible organization and a sensible leader has > > to take the possibility of conflict of interest into account. They > > also have to consider the perception of a conflict of interest. > > Of course, and the policies to deal with conflicts have deal with the > possibility that *anyone* at all might have conflict. But that was not your > suggestion. Your suggestion was to make one individual be subject to > additional scrutiny that no one else would be subject to. Please explain > why should one person be singled out for a special "six-month waiting > period" when the exact same possibility for conflict exists with anyone who > is ever on the committee? > I don't quite understand where the discussion went. The question was not whether Travis is singled out but whether he is "singled in". >From my perspectives (7 to 8 years) the situation has changed a lot. Most of the discussion and consensus building happens on github issues, pull requests and mailing lists. Merge policy has changed a lot since the svn days. Based on all the comments, Travis doesn't have time for this. And I think the final (last resort) decisions about code should be left to the active developers that know and participate in the actual work. If Travis is treated as developer but doesn't have a special status, then there is also no reason to "single out" him and Continuum for possibly too much influence. This is already the current status quo as it developed over the last several years, AFAICS. In my view, in a narrow sense, Travis is a "hit and run" contributor. good ideas and providing good contributions, but somebody has to integrate it, maintain it and fit it into the development plan. (Given my experience I would compare it more with GSOC contributions that need the "core developers" to provide the continuity in the development to absorb the good work.) Travis has too many other obligations and interests to provide this day to day continuity. Travis is still very important for providing ideas, pushing projects forward and as one of the community leaders, but I would leave the final decisions for the development of numpy to the developers in the trenches. I pretty much agree completely with Nathanial, and Sebastian, (except that I don't know much about any other FOSS communities) And to repeat my point from another thread on this: I'm very skeptical about any committee or board that is based on "outside members" and that is involved in the decision about code development. Josef > > > It is the opposite of sensible, to respond to this with 'how dare you" > > or by asserting that this could never happen or by saying that we > > shouldn't talk about that in case people get frightened. I point you > > Red herring. The objection (as many people have now voiced) is the double > standard you proposed. > > > again to Linus' interview [1]. He is not upset that he has been > > insulted by the implication of conflict of interest, he soberly > > accepts that this will always be an issue, with companies in > > particular, and goes out of his way to address that in an explicit and > > reasonable way. > > Your selective quotation is impressive. Also in that interview, Linus > points out that his employment contract is probably "unique in the entire > world". Which means in practical terms that the details of what he has does > are fairly well irrelevant to any other situation. So what is the point in > bringing it up, at all, except to try and diminish someone else by > comparison? > > (I'm done.) > > Bryan > _______________________________________________ > 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
