On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 3:14 PM, Tom Boothby <tomas.boot...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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.
Since I attempted to retract this proposal in light of Volker's sensible criticism, and people keep responding as if I didn't, let me officially retract this proposal. Instead I support what I think Volker suggested, which is using our existing completely open voting process on sage-devel, as we have been doing for years, for sage-abuse issues. But to make it clear that we care about sage-abuse issues and make clear the existence of sage-flame. -- William Stein Professor of Mathematics University of Washington http://wstein.org -- 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.
