[SciPy-Dev] SciPy governance model

[josef.pktd at gmail.com]

On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Matthew Brett <matthew.brett at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Mon, Jan 16, 2017 at 1:01 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Jan 15, 2017 at 8:15 AM, Pauli Virtanen <pav at iki.fi> wrote:
> >
> > Interesting discussion so far!
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Sat, 14 Jan 2017 10:03:43 -0800, Matthew Brett kirjoitti:
> >> [clip]
> >> > What do you think about the idea of having regular state-of-scipy
> >> > reviews to make sure we're conscious about keeping on track, assessing
> >> > risks, improving process?
> >>
> >> For the technical aspect, this sounds something like the Scipy roadmap
> >> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/ROADMAP.rst.txt), and
> the
> >> discussion leading to it, in conferences and online in public.
> >>
> >> Something like regular prompts for discussion of technical and
> >> organisation roadmap could be useful. At minimum, this could be simply a
> >> (bi-?)yearly post on the mailing list, to remind to update the roadmap
> >> and to summarize / bring up / discuss any relevant organisation updates
> /
> >> issues in the preceding period.
> >
> >
> > I quite like this idea. Documents like a roadmap can easily go out of
> date
> > if they're not actively maintained. Having a critical look at it once or
> > twice a year will be helpful. Also +1 for adding some organizational
> items
> > to it (I'm thinking CoC, FSA, etc. should have been on there).
> >
> > The list of people on the steering committee also needs to be updated
> with
> > this kind of frequency.
> >
> > How about doing this around 1 January and 1 July every year?
> >
> > I'm not sensing a lot of enthusiasm for the fixed-term/election idea,
>
> I'm afraid the previous discussion on this thread has made it very
> unlikely that you would see any enthusiasm, even if, in another world,
> it was a good idea.  That's the tragedy of mailing list discussions,
> as satirized here
>
> http://www.smbc-comics.com/?id=2939
>
> and evident from the recent discussion on the Jupyter governance
> document. If anyone gets angry or dismissive about an idea, and that
> isn't addressed, that's a very effective way of inducing consent and
> shutting down the discussion.
>


Matthew,
I think that's mis-characterizing this a bit. We had several governance
discussion over the last years, and my impression was that the vast
majority of those commenting where in favor of a more laid back approach
instead of a fully specified constitution and associated discussion.

(I think what's missing is a chair wo/man of the steering council and
heads/lieutenants
for each sup-package, and a specification of the rights of the release
manager and maybe some more.)

IMO, given the current contributors and the way contributors are recruited
and integrated, I don't see much difference between unlimited time and
fixed time with renewal. So, we can as well stick with what we know.

Josef



>
> Cheers,
>
> Matthew
> _______________________________________________
> SciPy-Dev mailing list
> SciPy-Dev at scipy.org
> https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/attachments/20170116/fdd566de/attachment.html>