On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 7:19 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Sep 5, 2015 at 12:04 AM, <josef.p...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 5:55 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.br...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 10:22 PM, Eric Firing <efir...@hawaii.edu> > wrote: > >> > On 2015/09/04 10:53 AM, Matthew Brett wrote: > >> >> On Fri, Sep 4, 2015 at 2:33 AM, Matthew Brett < > matthew.br...@gmail.com> > >> >> wrote: > >> >>> Hi, > >> >>> > >> >>> On Wed, Sep 2, 2015 at 5:41 PM, Chris Barker <chris.bar...@noaa.gov > > > >> >>> wrote: > >> >>>> 1) I very much agree that governance can make or break a project. > >> >>>> However, > >> >>>> the actual governance approach often ends up making less difference > >> >>>> than the > >> >>>> people involved. > >> >>>> > >> >>>> 2) While the FreeBSD and XFree examples do point to some real > >> >>>> problems with > >> >>>> the "core" model it seems that there are many other projects that > are > >> >>>> using > >> >>>> it quite successfully. > >> >> > >> >> I was just rereading the complaints about the 'core' structure from > >> >> high-level NetBSD project leaders: > >> >> > >> >> "[the "core" and "board of directors"] teams are dysfunctional > because > >> >> they do not provide leadership: all they do is act reactively to > >> >> requests from users and/or to resolve internal disputes. In other > >> >> words: there is no initiative nor vision emerging from these teams > >> >> (and, for that matter, from anybody)." [1] > >> >> > >> >> "There is no high-level direction; if you ask "what about the > problems > >> >> with threads" or "will there be a flash-friendly file system", the > >> >> best you'll get is "we'd love to have both" -- but no work is done to > >> >> recruit people to code these things, or encourage existing developers > >> >> to work on them." [2] > >> > > >> > > >> > This is consistent with Chris's first point. > >> > >> Do you mean Chris' point that "I very much agree that governance can > >> make or break a project"? Charles Hannum's complaints about NetBSD > >> are very specific in blaming the model rather than the people. I > >> think the XFree86 story supports the same conclusion - that the > >> governance model caused a sense of diffused responsibility that lead > >> to bad decisions and lack of direction. > >> > >> >> I imagine we will have to reconcile ourselves to similar problems, if > >> >> we adopt the same structures. > >> > > >> > Do you have suggestions as to who would make a good numpy president or > >> > BDFL and potentially has the time and inclination to do it, or how to > >> > identify and recruit such a person? > >> > >> That's a good question, and the answer is that in the current > >> situation (zero interest in this discussion from the three current > >> members of the numpy leadership team) - no reasonable person would be > >> interested in that job. That's the situation we're in, and so we > >> have to accept that nothing is going to change, with the consequences > >> that implies. If the situation were different, and we had the > >> interest or commitment to explore this problem, then I guess we could > >> discuss other options including the one I suggested further up the > >> thread. > > > > > > " > > > > Today, the project is run by a different cabal. This is the result of a > > coup that took place in 2000-2001, in which The NetBSD Foundation was > > taken over by a fraudulent change of the board of directors. (Note: > > It's probably too late for me to pursue any legal remedy for this, > > unfortunately.) Although "The NetBSD Project" and "The NetBSD > > Foundation" were intended from the start to be separate entities -- the > > latter supplying support infrastructure for the former -- this > > distinction has been actively blurred since, so that the current "board" > > of TNF has rather tight control over many aspects of TNP. > > > > " > > > > " > > > > The existing NetBSD Foundation must be disbanded, and replaced with > > an organization that fulfills its original purpose: to merely handle > > administrative issues, and not to manage day-to-day affairs. > > > > " > > > > > > It doesn't sound to me like a developer and community driven governance > > structure to me. > > I think that's a separate issue - the distinction between the 'board' > and the 'core'. It would be great if the 'core' concept was fine as > long as there is no 'board' but I think that's a hard argument to > make. > there is an "esprit de corps" pronounced "esprit de core" but not an "esprit de board" I trust the core developers, but not ... But maybe I don't understand some definitions " The "core" group must be replaced with people who are actually competent and dedicated enough to review proposals, accept feedback, and make good decisions. " I thought that's what the "core" group is. Josef > > Cheers, > > Matthew > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion >
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
