Hi On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: >> [snip] >> > I don't really see a problem with "codifying" the status quo. >> >> That's an excellent point. If we believe that the current situation >> is the best possible, both now and in the future, then codifying the >> status quo is an excellent idea. >> >> So, we should probably first start by asking ourselves: >> >> * what numpy is doing well; >> * what numpy could do better; >> >> and then ask, is there some way we could make it more likely we will >> improve over time. >> >> [snip] >> >> > As the current debate shows it's possible to have a public discussion >> > about >> > the direction of the project without having to delegate providing a >> > vision >> > to a president. >> >> The idea of a president that I had in mind, was not someone who makes >> all decisions, but the person who holds themselves responsible for the >> performance of the project. If the project has a coherent vision >> already, the president has no need to provide one, but it's the >> president's job to worry about whether we have vision or not, and do >> what they need to, to make sure we don't lose track of that. If you >> don't know it already, I highly recommend Jim Collins' work on 'level >> 5 leadership' [1] > > > Still doesn't sound like the need for a president to me > > " the person who holds themselves responsible for the > performance of the project" > > sounds more like the role of the "core" group (adding plural to persons) to > me, and cannot be pushed of to an official president.
Except that, in the past, having multiple people taking decisions has led to the situation where no-one feels themselves accountable for the result, hence this situation tends to lead to stagnation. > Nathaniel to push and organize the discussion, Chuck for continuity, and > several core developers for detailed ideas and implementation, and a large > number of contributors. (stylized roles) > and noisy mailing list for feedback and discussion. > > Given the size of the numpy development group, numpy needs individuals for > the vision and to push things not a president, vice-presidents and assistant > vice-presidents, IMO. Yes, if the roles were honorary and administrative, they would not be useful. Cheers, Matthew _______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
