[SciPy-Dev] SciPy governance model

[Evgeni Burovski]

On Fri, Jan 13, 2017 at 8:22 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Wed, Jan 11, 2017 at 1:13 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 13, 2016 at 9:03 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Sep 10, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 1:37 AM, Eric Larson <larson.eric.d at gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> My feeling is that having a clear leader in place is important, so I'm
>>>>>> also leaning away from the numpy model towards one where
>>>>>> responsibilities are more explicitly assigned.  Exactly how to best
>>>>>> make
>>>>>> that assignment is still unclear to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> +1 for BD(FL) / leader-style from me, too. I like Matthew's suggestion
>>>>> of the top 5 active folks discuss to see which of them are actually
>>>>> interested in taking on that role.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the feedback everyone. Looks like everyone likes this
>>>> suggestion so far, so we'll give that a try.
>>>
>>>
>>> Hi all, I'm happy to report that we've worked this out. Pauli was our
>>> preferred candidate, and he has agreed to take up the role of BDFL!

<snip>

> The main question I'd like to raise, is whether we really want a BDFL,
> as opposed to an elected projected leader.
>
> I think a BDFL makes sense where there's one person who started the
> project, wrote most of the code (at least at some point in the
> project's history), has been in charge since the beginning, and is
> still very active.   I think that does correspond to the situation for
> Linus  / Linux; Guido / Python; and Fernando / IPython.   I don't
> think we have anyone matching that description in Scipy.
>
> On the other hand, I do think it's important to have a project leader,
> with final authority on the direction of the project, and who takes
> responsibility for the health of the project.
>
> So, I propose, rather than have a BDFL, we have a system for choosing
> a leader,

Which is exactly how it worked this time --- using the system of your
suggestion, https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2016-September/021476.html


> say every 4 years, where we may or may not have limits on
> the number of consecutive terms.

While I agree that this model is better in the vast majority of
situations, it feels to be a bit of over-engineering for scipy.

> We can use that 4 year cycle to
> make sure we're reconsidering the direction of the project regularly,
> and thinking about where we could improve, and where we might be
> messing up.   It provides a natural way to give people a rest from the
> job, if they want one.   If one leader steps back, and sees another
> leader doing something better than they did, they can learn from that
> when they next have a leadership term.

I agree it's worth it to periodically sit down and think about the
direction of the project.
I'm not sure though there is benefit in tying this up to a machinery
of fixed-time leadership terms, holding formal elections and so on.


> Of course that requires some formalization, but I think it's a
> considerably better system than the BDFL, for our case.

It seems to me that the effort needed to formalize it is not worth the
benefit, specifically in our case.

My 2 cents,

Evgeni