[Numpy-discussion] Comments on governance proposal (was: Notes from the numpy dev meeting at scipy 2015)

[Bryan Van de Ven]

> On Aug 27, 2015, at 10:22 AM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> In the case of the 'core' model, we have some compelling testimony
> from someone with a great deal of experience:
> 
> """
> Much of this early structure (CVS, web site, cabal ["core" group],
> etc.) was copied verbatim by other open source (this term not being in
> wide use yet) projects -- even the form of the project name and the
> term "core". This later became a kind of standard template for
> starting up an open source project. [...] I'm sorry to say that I
> helped create this problem, and that most of the projects which
> modeled themselves after NetBSD (probably due to its high popularity
> in 1993 and 1994) have suffered similar problems. FreeBSD and XFree86,
> for example, have both forked successor projects (Dragonfly and X.org)
> for very similar reasons.
> """

Who goes on to propose:

7) The "core" group must be replaced with people who are actually
   competent and dedicated enough to review proposals, accept feedback,
   and make good decisions.  More to the point, though, the "core" group
   must only act when *needed* -- most technical decisions should be
   left to the community to hash out; it must not preempt the community
   from developing better solutions.  (This is how the "core" group
   worked during most of the project's growth period.)


Which, AFAICT, is exactly in line with the Numpy proposal:

"""
During the everyday project activities, council members participate in
all discussions, code review and other project activities as peers
with all other Contributors and the Community. In these everyday
activities, Council Members do not have any special power or privilege
through their membership on the Council.
...
However, the Council's primary responsibility is to facilitate the
ordinary community-based decision making procedure described above. If
we ever have to step in and formally override the community for the
health of the Project, then we will do so, but we will consider
reaching this point to indicate a failure in our leadership.
"""

Bryan