I wrote my recommendations quickly before heading on a plane. I hope the spirit of them was caught correctly. I also want to re-emphasize that I completely understand that the Steering Council is not to be making decisions that often and almost all activity will be similar to it is now --- discussion, debate, proposals, and pull-requests --- that is a good thing.
However, there is a need for leadership to help unstick things and move the project forward from time to time because quite often doing *something* can be better than trying to please everyone with a voice. My concerns about how to do this judgment have 2 major components: 1) The need for long-term consistency --- a one-year horizon on defining this group is too short in my mind for a decades-old project like NumPy. 2) The group that helps unstick things needs to be small (1, 3, or 5 at the most) We could call this group the "adjudication group" rather than the "Steering Council" as well. I could see that having a formal method of changing that "adjudication group" would be a good idea as well (and perhaps that formal vote could be made by a vote of a group of active contributors. In that case, I would define active as having a time-window of 5 years instead of just 1). Thanks, -Travis On Mon, Sep 21, 2015 at 2:39 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebast...@sipsolutions.net> wrote: > On Mo, 2015-09-21 at 11:32 +0200, Sebastian Berg wrote: > > On So, 2015-09-20 at 11:20 -0700, Travis Oliphant wrote: > > > After long conversations at BIDS this weekend and after reading the > > > entire governance document, I realized that the steering council is > > > very large and I don't agree with the mechanism by which it is > > > chosen. > > > > > > > Hmmm, well I never had the impression that the steering council would be > > huge. But maybe you are right, and if it is, I could imagine something > > like option 2, but vote based (could possibly dual use those in charge > > of NumFOCUS relations, we had even discussed this possibility) which > > would have final say if necessary (could mean that the contributers > > definition could be broadened a bit). > > However, I am not sure this is what you suggested, because for me it > > should be a regular vote (if just because I am scared of having to make > > the right pick). And while I will not block this if others agree, I am > > currently not comfortable with either picking a BDFL (sorry guys :P) or > > very fond of an oligarchy for live. > > > > Anyway, I still don't claim to have a good grasp on these things, but > > without a vote, it seems a bit what Matthew warned about. > > > > One thing I could imagine is something like an "Advisory Board", without > > (much) formal power. If we had a voted Steering Council, it could be the > > former members + old time contributers which we would choose now. These > > could be invited to meetings at the very least. > > > > Just my current, probably not well thought out thoughts on the matter. > > But neither of your three options feel very obvious to me unfortunately. > > > > - Sebastian > > > > > > > A one year time frame is pretty short on the context of a two decades > > > old project and I believe the current council has too few people who > > > have been around the community long enough to help unstuck difficult > > > situations if that were necessary. > > > > > > I would recommend three possible adjustments to the steering council > > > concept. > > > > > > 1 - define a BDFL for the council. I would nominate chuck Harris > > > > > > 2 - limit the council to 3 people. I would nominate chuck, nathaniel, > > > and pauli. > > > > > > 3 - add me as a permanent member of the steering council. > > > > > Though, maybe you should be in the steering council in any case even by > the current rules. Maybe you were not too active for a while, but I > doubt you will quite stop doing stuff on numpy soon.... > > > > > Writing NumPy was a significant amount of work. I have been working > > > indirectly or directly in support of NumPy continously since I wrote > > > it. While I don't actively participate all the time, I still have a > > > lot of knowledge, context, and experience in how NumPy is used, why it > > > is the way it is, and how things could be better. I also work with > > > people directly who have and will contribute regularly. > > > > > > I am formally requesting that the steering council concept be adjusted > > > in one of these three ways. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Travis > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > > _______________________________________________ > > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > > _______________________________________________ > NumPy-Discussion mailing list > NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org > https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion > > -- *Travis Oliphant* *Co-founder and CEO* @teoliphant 512-222-5440 http://www.continuum.io
_______________________________________________ NumPy-Discussion mailing list NumPy-Discussion@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/numpy-discussion
