The governance models of the two projects, PySAL and Carpentries, share some similarities but also have significant differences.
Both projects adopt community-based governance models that prioritize community engagement and input. Both have committees responsible for various aspects of the project, such as the Curriculum Advisory Committee in Carpentries and the Technical Steering Committee in PySAL. These committees provide guidance on project direction and development, with members being elected or appointed based on their contributions and expertise in the relevant areas.
However, there are also some notable differences in the governance models of the two projects. For instance, PySAL has a more centralized leadership structure, with the Director overseeing the entire project and its various components. In contrast, Carpentries has a more distributed leadership structure, with an Executive Council that oversees the strategic direction of the organization, while committee members are responsible for their respective areas of focus.
Another difference is that PySAL is more focused on software development, whereas Carpentries is focused on training and education in data and software skills. PySAL has a Code of Conduct that outlines expected behavior and interactions within the community, while Carpentries has a more comprehensive Code of Conduct and a set of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion principles that guide the organization's work.
In my opinion, both governance models have their strengths and weaknesses. The centralized model of PySAL provides a clear leadership structure, which can be useful in software development projects where direction and coordination are important. However, this model may also limit community input and engagement.
On the other hand, the more distributed model of Carpentries allows for greater community participation and input, which is especially important for training and education projects that rely on diverse perspectives and experiences. This model also promotes a culture of inclusion and diversity, which can lead to more innovative and effective solutions.
In Conclusion, I believe that the governance model of Carpentries is more effective for community-based projects that prioritize education and training, as it allows for greater community participation and fosters a culture of diversity and inclusion. However, the more centralized model of PySAL may be more suitable for software development projects that require a clear direction and coordination.
ambonte
commented
1 year ago
Names: Bonte Emma Bana The projects I analyzed: Pysal | The Carpentries Project 1 Link: http://pysal.org/ Project 2 Link: https://carpentries.org/
The governance models of the two projects, PySAL and Carpentries, share some similarities but also have significant differences.
Both projects adopt community-based governance models that prioritize community engagement and input. Both have committees responsible for various aspects of the project, such as the Curriculum Advisory Committee in Carpentries and the Technical Steering Committee in PySAL. These committees provide guidance on project direction and development, with members being elected or appointed based on their contributions and expertise in the relevant areas.
However, there are also some notable differences in the governance models of the two projects. For instance, PySAL has a more centralized leadership structure, with the Director overseeing the entire project and its various components. In contrast, Carpentries has a more distributed leadership structure, with an Executive Council that oversees the strategic direction of the organization, while committee members are responsible for their respective areas of focus.
Another difference is that PySAL is more focused on software development, whereas Carpentries is focused on training and education in data and software skills. PySAL has a Code of Conduct that outlines expected behavior and interactions within the community, while Carpentries has a more comprehensive Code of Conduct and a set of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion principles that guide the organization's work.
In my opinion, both governance models have their strengths and weaknesses. The centralized model of PySAL provides a clear leadership structure, which can be useful in software development projects where direction and coordination are important. However, this model may also limit community input and engagement.
On the other hand, the more distributed model of Carpentries allows for greater community participation and input, which is especially important for training and education projects that rely on diverse perspectives and experiences. This model also promotes a culture of inclusion and diversity, which can lead to more innovative and effective solutions.
In Conclusion, I believe that the governance model of Carpentries is more effective for community-based projects that prioritize education and training, as it allows for greater community participation and fosters a culture of diversity and inclusion. However, the more centralized model of PySAL may be more suitable for software development projects that require a clear direction and coordination.