shared governance model

[NickleDave]

dask is one model:
https://github.com/dask/governance

as suggested here:
https://twitter.com/jcristharif/status/1404841031129092097

[NickleDave]

See also this Turing Way chapter:
https://deploy-preview-1858--the-turing-way.netlify.app/collaboration/shared-ownership.html

as suggested here:
https://twitter.com/MalvikaSharan/status/1407728640255725576

[NickleDave]

How (not) to design and implement a large-scale, interdisciplinary research infrastructure

https://academic.oup.com/spp/article-abstract/47/6/818/6044344?redirectedFrom=fulltext&login=false

[NickleDave]

success story:
https://link-springer-com.proxy.library.emory.edu/article/10.1057/biosoc.2013.23

both this and the how not to from
https://twitter.com/beckettws/status/1407754490011213825

[NickleDave]

Some models, from this issue:
pyscript/governance#2 (comment)

So I wonder - is the goal to move towards a collective governing model? If so, what kinds of commitments is Anaconda making to ensure that this happens? What is the end-state of this next phase of governance transformation? Does it look like a multi-stakeholder entity like the PSF, Apache, etc, or more like a "one main stakeholder that allows others to come to its table" project like Tensorflow? What kinds of oversight will it have to ensure that the project moves forward in-line with its mission and governing principles? Does Anaconda intend to move ownership over marks/licenses/etc into a neutral organization like NumFocus?

PSF

https://peps.python.org/pep-8012/
https://www.python.org/psf/bylaws/

Apache

https://www.apache.org/foundation/governance/

tensorflow

https://github.com/tensorflow/community/blob/master/governance/code-and-collaboration.md

[NickleDave]

See also, sklearn's model:
https://scikit-learn.org/stable/governance.html#decision-making-process

[NickleDave]

bootstrap model for Executable Books, includes model for enhancement proposals
executablebooks/meta#843 (comment)