Thanks Chuck, I have been paying some attention, actually --- just not speaking up until there is a major difference of opinion (like the governance document...). I guess I don't feel like I've completely lost track of "how things work" --- while there are some new wonderful faces and contributors. It all feels pretty familiar to past experiences (just pleasantly bigger and more people).
I don't expect to be the most active participant for sure, but I continue to hope to train others where possible and be a resource for others to ask questions of. -Travis On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:08 PM, Charles R Harris <charlesr.har...@gmail.com > wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 3:21 PM, Travis Oliphant <tra...@continuum.io> > wrote: > >> >> >>> Regarding the seed council, I just tried to pick an objective >>> criterion and an arbitrary date that seemed generally in keeping with >>> idea of "should be active in the last 1-to-2-years-ish". Fiddling with >>> the exact date in particular makes very little difference -- between >>> pushing it back to 2 years ago today or forward to 1 year ago today, >>> the only thing that changes is whether Pauli makes the list or not. >>> (And Pauli is obviously a great council candidate, though I don't know >>> whether he even wants to be on it.) >>> >>> > Personally, I have no idea how big the council should be. Too big, and >>> > there is no point, consensus is harder to reach the larger the group, >>> > and the main (only?) role of the council is to resolve issues where >>> > consensus has not been reached in the larger community. But what is >>> > too big? >>> >>> >>> > As for make-up of the council, I think we need to expand beyond people >>> > who have recently contributed core code. >>> > >>> > Yes, the council does need to have expertise to make technical >>> > decisions, but if you think about the likely contentious issues like >>> > ABI breakage, a core-code focused view is incomplete. So there should >>> > be representation by: >>> > >>> > Someone(s) with a long history of working with the code -- that >>> > institutional memory of why decisions were made the way they were >>> > could be key. >>> >>> Sure -- though I can't really imagine any way of framing a rule like >>> this that *wouldn't* be satisfied by Chuck + Ralf + Pauli, so my guess >>> is that such a rule would not actually have any effect on the council >>> membership in practice. >>> >> >> As the original author of NumPy, I would like to be on the seed council >> as long as it is larger than 7 people. That is my proposal. I don't >> need to be a permanent member, but I do believe I have enough history that >> I can understand issues even if I haven't been working on code directly. >> >> >> I think I do bring history and information that provides all of the >> history that could be helpful on occasion. In addition, if a matter is >> important enough to even be brought to the attention of this council, I >> would like to be involved in the discussion about it. >> >> It's a simple change to the text --- basically an explanation that Travis >> requested to be on the seed council. >> > > I too would like you to be a member. We could either write it into the > text in recognition of your status as the Numpy creator, or it could be the > first order of business. I would only ask that you give yourself some time > to become familiar with how things work and the people involved in the > current community. It has been some years since you have been active in > code development. > > Chuck > >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
