The scope of governance I am proposing has drifted from my original intent. I’ll try to state it clearly.
We need a general decision making body for Stan independent of Columbia, NumFOCUS and various companies.
This group is for all Stan decision making.
On many successful open source projects the group consist of committers + valuable individuals.
There are some standard guidelines for inclusion/exclusion in the group but I suggest that the group decide how it maintains itself and makes decisions.
This discussion has made it clear that there is concern that the set of committers is too big.
a) Michael’s proposal is about how we manage committers/pull requests/branching. My proposal is about how we run Stan. His proposal is a viable alternative if the scope is upped to running Stan.
b) My original proposed electorate of committers, perhaps culled a bit by some unspecified process + Andrew etc…
c) !New and Improved Electorate!: A set of volunteers that nominate themselves as the seed electorate. A variation would be giving Andrew veto power over nominees which would be his first and last act as the benevolent dictator.