VOTE: Changes to Governance Model for pandas

[Dr-Irv]

There is a proposal to change the governance model for pandas. The proposed governance model is described in 2 pull requests:

• Governance proposal: Steering Committee and Teams #17 describes the creation of a Steering Committee and the concept of Teams
• Teams Responsibilities, permissions, criteria #18 describes the responsibilities of the different Teams

According to the current governance model, 80% of the core team needs to vote on this issue, with at least 2/3 of the votes being in favor. That means we need the votes of 17 individuals, with a positive vote of 14 members of the core team guaranteeing approval.

The rendered governance documents can be found at:

• Main Governance Document: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas-governance/blob/3b494821873a50fd1bdc8609445fa7d411848fe7/governance.md
• Description of Individual Teams: https://github.com/pandas-dev/pandas-governance/blob/c0e5c586ed9b6dd95d180eff8a6e482571268fa9/teams.md

Voting will close on August 31, 2024.

Cast your vote in a comment below.

• +1: approve.
• 0: abstain.
• -1: disapprove

@pandas-dev/pandas-core

[WillAyd]

+1

[mroeschke]

+1

[alimcmaster1]

+1

[wesm]

+1

…

On Wed, Aug 7, 2024 at 2:37 PM Ali McMaster ***@***.***> wrote: +1 — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#20 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AACQO56O7VREP7KY6ZQBEBTZQJZQRAVCNFSM6AAAAABMEYW2FWVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDENZUGIYTENJSG4> . You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[fangchenli]

+1

[jbrockmendel]

Abstain

[lukemanley]

+1

[rhshadrach]

+1

[datapythonista]

-1

• Not a fan of the steward comcept and giving non core devs the same voting rights as core devs
• I think the new team definitions are unrealistically complex. In oururrent simpler team structure most teams don't do much in practice, and the ones that work (like finance) is usually a single person doing all the work. We should go into making that simpler and closer to reality, not the opposite
• Feels like a 5+ member steering commitee is inefficient. I'd rather have a 3 people committee that just helps when consensus isn't possible

[jreback]

+1

[attack68]

+1

Was torn between 0 and +1, actually, thinking similar to Marc that this may be too complex and impractical. In the end I view having the momentum to implement something positive and reacting to or iterating any failures later is more favourable than losing all the momentum and risking not adopting any changes at all.

[jorisvandenbossche]

+1

[TomAugspurger]

+0 changed to +1 #20 (comment)

[twoertwein]

0

[lithomas1]

0