NEP: add Spending NumPy Project Funds (NEP 48)#18454
Conversation
ilayn
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I couldn't have too much time so I just added some basic questions that jumped at the first glance. I think a simple "company A pays for person B for feature C"-type, user story of a restricted fund can help a lot in the intro to make the rest of the document tightly scoped.
Co-authored-by: InessaPawson <albuscode@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Matt Haberland <mhaberla@calpoly.edu>
…unding Co-authored-by: InessaPawson <albuscode@gmail.com>
| When considering development work, principle (1) implies that priority should | ||
| be giving to (a) the most boring/painful tasks that no one likes doing, and to | ||
| necessary structural changes to the code base that are too large to be done by | ||
| a volunteer in a reasonable amount of time. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
what about work needing specific skills that are not present within the maintainers and volunteers groups?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This indeed can happen. The first principle in "what to pay for" says to pay for things that otherwise won't get done. One reason something doesn't get done is because the required skills are missing in the project/community.
I think we are missing skills, but more outside of development work. It's very well possible that it's a combination of a rare skill and no one in the team with bandwidth + motivation to address the need.
So we look outside of the community to find the right person. I think that's addressed in the next section ("who to pay").
|
I resolved the comments I answered over a week ago, and addressed the few remaining ones in the most recent commit. I propose to merge this PR with Draft status - discussion seems to have died down. |
|
Thanks @rgommers |
Cc @InessaPawson, @stefanv. Sending to the mailing list, high level discussion should happen there (smaller comments and textual issues can be dealt with on this PR).