Dictatorships hardly prevent trend chasing. In fact, they can enable it in a lot of ways, because fewer people have to agree on changing course.
Having said that, I also like the idea of putting someone in charge of all the repos industry style rather than trying to run a pure democracy. As Michael points out, that’s the current arrangement at the lowest levels with:
One reason @betanalpha and I were suggesting splitting the stan-dev/stan repo is because the langauge and algorithms are distinct parts of it. Also, currently nobody’s in charge of the interfaces/services piece of the puzzle, which may be why it’s dropping on the ground between all of us. @syclik is de facto in charge having written almost all of the current code. Also, I don’t think we put anyone in charge of cmdstan, but please correct me if I’m wrong. We should have this actually published somewhere on GitHub.
The splitting of stan-dev/stan between me and @betanalpha is one of the reasons we think the repos should be split; @seantalts has said he’d rather consolidate instead.
Of course, I presume @betanalpha’s and my opinions in this are predicated on our remaining in charge of the algorithms and language respectively. So take our recommendations with a grain of salt here!
I think we just want to give whoever you call the convener veto power. If that gets out of hand, we could rethink. Again, that’s been the de facto governance strategy so far.