On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 10:45 AM, Sebastian Berg <sebast...@sipsolutions.net > wrote:
> On Mi, 2015-09-23 at 17:08 -0600, Charles R Harris 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. > > > > I think I can agree with that. On a serious note, I now realize that I > am probably the one with the most objection, so for everyone, do not > bother with trying to convince me, you probably cannot fully, nor do you > have to, I will let it stand as is after this and let others take over > from here (after this, probably whatever Chuck says is good). [1] > > More to the point of the actual members: > > So to say, I feel the council members have to try to be *directly* > active and see being active as a necessary *commitment* (i.e. also try > to travel to meetings). This will always be a difficult judgment of > course, but there is no help to it. The current definitions imply this. > And two years seems fine. It is not that short, at least unless someone > stops contributing very abruptly which I do not think is that usual. I > will weight in to keep the current times but do not feel very strongly. > > About using the commit log to seed, I think there are some old term > contributers (David Cournapeau maybe?), who never stopped doing quite a > bit but may not have merge commits. However, I think we can start of > with what we had, then I would hope Chuck and maybe Ralf can fill in the > blanks. > AFAIK, I still have merge commits. I am actually doing a bit of numpy development ATM, so I would prefer keeping them, but I won't fight it either. David > > About the size, I think if we get too many -- if that is possible -- we > should just change the governance at that time to be not veto based > anymore. This is something to keep in mind, but probably does not need > to be formalized. > > - Sebastian > > > [1] Sorry to "footnote" this, but I think I am probably rudely repeating > myself and frankly do **not want this to be discussed**. It is just to > try to be fully clear where I come from: > Until SciPy 2015, I could list many people on this list who have shown > more direct involvement in numpy then Travis since I joined and have no > affiliation to numpy. If Travis had been new to the community at the > time, I would be surprised if I would even recognize his name. > I know this is only half the picture and Travis already mentioned > another side, but this is what I mostly saw even if it may be a harsh > and rude assessment. > > > > > > Chuck > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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
