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

[Matthew Brett]

Hi,

On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 6:23 PM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 5:11 PM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:04 AM, Matthew Brett
>> > <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hi,
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 3:34 PM,  <josef.pktd at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> [snip]
>> >> > I don't really see a problem with "codifying" the status quo.
>> >>
>> >> That's an excellent point.    If we believe that the current situation
>> >> is the best possible, both now and in the future, then codifying the
>> >> status quo is an excellent idea.
>> >>
>> >> So, we should probably first start by asking ourselves:
>> >>
>> >> * what numpy is doing well;
>> >> * what numpy could do better;
>> >>
>> >> and then ask, is there some way we could make it more likely we will
>> >> improve over time.
>> >>
>> >> [snip]
>> >>
>> >> > As the current debate shows it's possible to have a public discussion
>> >> > about
>> >> > the direction of the project without having to delegate providing a
>> >> > vision
>> >> > to a president.
>> >>
>> >> The idea of a president that I had in mind, was not someone who makes
>> >> all decisions, but the person who holds themselves responsible for the
>> >> performance of the project.  If the project has a coherent vision
>> >> already, the president has no need to provide one, but it's the
>> >> president's job to worry about whether we have vision or not, and do
>> >> what they need to, to make sure we don't lose track of that.   If you
>> >> don't know it already, I highly recommend Jim Collins' work on 'level
>> >> 5 leadership' [1]
>> >
>> >
>> > Still doesn't sound like the need for a president to me
>> >
>> > " the person who holds themselves responsible for the
>> > performance of the project"
>> >
>> > sounds more like the role of the "core" group (adding plural to persons)
>> > to
>> > me, and cannot be pushed of to an official president.
>>
>> Except that, in the past, having multiple people taking decisions has
>> led to the situation where no-one feels themselves accountable for the
>> result, hence this situation tends to lead to stagnation.
>
>
> Is there any evidence for this?

Oh - dear - that's the key point, but I'm obviously not making it
clearly enough.  Yes there is, and that was the evidence I was
pointing to before.

But anyway - Sebastian is right - this discussion isn't going anywhere useful.

So - let's step back.

In thinking about governance, we first need to ask what we want to
achieve.  This includes considering the risks ahead for the project.

So, in the spirit of fruitful discussion, can I ask what y'all
consider to be the current problems with working on numpy (other than
the technical ones).   What is numpy doing well, and what is it doing
badly? What risks do we have to plan for in the future?

Cheers,

Matthew