On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 10:36 AM, William Stein <wst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Given the potentially political nature of such a choice, one > possibility is to do something apolitical, and select based on > ownership. In particular, based on lines of code contributed to Sage, > which is an (imperfect!) but non-politicial measure of how much > ownership people have in Sage (with legal value, since people do not > contribute their copyright). By this definition: > > > https://github.com/sagemath/sage/graphs/contributors?from=2006-02-05&to=2014-11-18&type=a > > the top 12 all time list of contributors to Sage, in order, are: > > [a list of 12 dudes] > In the event of a gender-polarizing conflict, this committee will not be seen as unbiased. In order to increase minority representation, I would suggest that a maximum of 2/3 of the committee should be comprised of a particular gender. Perhaps the top 8 contributors, followed by the top 4 who do not identify as male. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to sage-devel+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-devel. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
