Re: [Numpy-discussion] UC Berkeley hiring developers to work on NumPy
Hi, On Sun, May 21, 2017 at 7:27 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > Hi All, > > First, it will be great to have more people developing! On avoiding > potential conflicts: I'm not overly worried, in part because of my > experience with astropy (for which NASA support developers at STScI > and CXC). One possible solution for trying to avoid them would be to > adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of interests to PRs, > that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone who has a conflict > of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a superviser, someone > from the same institute, etc. There's surely a spectrum from "I'm sure it's going to be fine, let's just see what happens" to detailed documentation of procedure and management. In this case I'm arguing for something fairly well to the right of "I'm sure it's going to be fine" - it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint with a relatively small amount of effort. Cheers, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] UC Berkeley hiring developers to work on NumPy
Hi Matthew, > it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint > with a relatively small amount of effort. My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a suggestion for part of this blueprint! I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I intend to contribute much beyond this e-mail. Indeed, it may be that the old adage "every initiative is punishable" holds here... would you, or one of the others who feels it is important to have a blueprint, be willing to provide a concrete text for discussion? All the best, Marten ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] UC Berkeley hiring developers to work on NumPy
On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 11:52 AM, Marten van Kerkwijk < m.h.vankerkw...@gmail.com> wrote: > My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of > interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone > who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a > superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a > suggestion for part of this blueprint! > This sounds like a good rule of thumb to me. As a practical matter, asking someone outside to approve changes is a good way to ensure that decisions are not short-circuited by offline discussions. But remember that per our governance procedures, we already require consensus for decision making. So I don't think we need an actual change here. I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I > haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I intend > to contribute much beyond this e-mail. I am also not worried about this, really not at all. NumPy already has governance procedures and a steering committee for handling exactly these sorts of concerns, should they arise (which I also consider extremely unlikely in the case of BIDS and their non-profit funder). ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] UC Berkeley hiring developers to work on NumPy
Hi, On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk wrote: > Hi Matthew, > >> it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring blueprint >> with a relatively small amount of effort. > > My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of > interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone > who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be a > superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a > suggestion for part of this blueprint! > > I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I > haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I intend > to contribute much beyond this e-mail. Indeed, it may be that the old > adage "every initiative is punishable" holds here... I understand what you're saying, but I think a more helpful way of thinking of it, is putting the groundwork in place for the most fruitful possible collaboration. > would you, or one > of the others who feels it is important to have a blueprint, be > willing to provide a concrete text for discussion? It doesn't make sense for me to do that, I'm #13 for commits in the last year. I'm just one of the many people who completely depend on numpy. Also, taking a little time to think these things through seems like a small investment with the potential for significant gain, in terms of improving communication and mitigating risk. So, I think my suggestion is that it would be a good idea for Nathaniel and the current steering committee to talk through how this is going to play out, how the work will be selected and directed, and so on. Cheers, Matthew ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
Re: [Numpy-discussion] UC Berkeley hiring developers to work on NumPy
On Mon, 2017-05-22 at 17:35 +0100, Matthew Brett wrote: > Hi, > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 4:52 PM, Marten van Kerkwijk > wrote: > > Hi Matthew, > > > > > it seems to me that we could get 80% of the way to a reassuring > > > blueprint with a relatively small amount of effort. > > > > My sentence "adapt the typical academic rule for conflicts of > > interests to PRs, that non-trivial ones cannot be merged by someone > > who has a conflict of interest with the author, i.e., it cannot be > > a > > superviser, someone from the same institute, etc." was meant as a > > suggestion for part of this blueprint! > > > > I'll readily admit, though, that since I'm not overly worried, I > > haven't even looked at the policies that are in place, nor do I > > intend > > to contribute much beyond this e-mail. Indeed, it may be that the > > old > > adage "every initiative is punishable" holds here... > > I understand what you're saying, but I think a more helpful way of > thinking of it, is putting the groundwork in place for the most > fruitful possible collaboration. > > > would you, or one > > of the others who feels it is important to have a blueprint, be > > willing to provide a concrete text for discussion? > > It doesn't make sense for me to do that, I'm #13 for commits in the > last year. I'm just one of the many people who completely depend on > numpy. Also, taking a little time to think these things through > seems > like a small investment with the potential for significant gain, in > terms of improving communication and mitigating risk. > > So, I think my suggestion is that it would be a good idea for > Nathaniel and the current steering committee to talk through how this > is going to play out, how the work will be selected and directed, and > so on. > Frankly, I would suggest to wait for now and ask whoever is going to get the job to work out how they think it should be handled. And then we complain if we expect more/better ;). For now I only would say that I will expect more community type of work then we now often manage to do. And things such as meticulously sticking to writing NEPs. So the only thing I can see that might be good is putting "community work" or something like it specifically as part of the job description, and thats up to Nathaniel probably. Some things like not merging large changes by two people sittings in the same office should be obvious (and even if it happens, we can revert). But its nothing much new there I think. - Sebastian > Cheers, > > Matthew > ___ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@python.org > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part ___ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
