WEB: Update NumFOCUS committee members #47650
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
shoyer
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2022
jreback
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2022
cpcloud
approved these changes
Jul 9, 2022
simonjayhawkins
added
the
Admin
mroeschke
approved these changes
Jul 10, 2022
yehoshuadimarsky
pushed a commit
to yehoshuadimarsky/pandas
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
After initial discussion in the mailing list about updating the NumFOCUS committee, I did some research, and based on the governance docs the main goal of the committee is to manage the funds coming from NumFOCUS.
So, I guess it makes sense that the list matches the approvers of NumFOCUS funds previously discussed.
The governance also mentions that the committee must have at least 5 members. Leaving Wes in the list even if he's not one of the 4 approvers. Being the BDFL of the project I guess it makes sense to keep.
We can always continue the discussion, but for now I think the new list makes more sense than the previous.
CC: @wesm @cpcloud @shoyer @TomAugspurger @mroeschke