[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Sat Aug 30 13:18:38 PDT 2014

On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> I want to emphasize that the initial list of members Britton came up
> with (as he noted in the proposal) is only an *initial* list, and will
> hopefully very quickly expand to include less active "developers" who
> are nonetheless embedded in the community.
>
> -Matt
>
>
And this is why I think we need a list of people who are regarded as "core"
developers, to differentiate them from the what will likely be a very large
list of "members".  Right now from a professional standpoint, there is very
little benefit from contributing to the code base, in that very few people
recognize your contributions (ie a handful of other developers).  Aside
from a list of core developers that are highlighted on the webpage, or
having a new yt paper come out, I don't see any other way in which this can
be remedied.  Perhaps others have ideas?

> >
> > Brian
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> HI Brian,
> >>
> >> I couldn't agree more on having a documentation representative present
> at
> >> team meetings.  In fact, I think this was even in my original draft,
> but I
> >> somehow lost track of it.  Thanks for bringing it up.  I will get that
> back
> >> in there.  A community representative is also a good idea, but I'm less
> sure
> >> how that role would be filled.  If anyone has any thoughts on that,
> please
> >> do share.  If it can't be figured out before the YTEP is accepted, we
> can
> >> definitely amend it.  Thanks, Brian!
> >>
> >> Britton
> >>
> >>
> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Hi Brian,
> >>>
> >>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> > Hi folks,
> >>> >
> >>> > Chiming in as somebody who is on the far periphery of yt development
> >>> > (having
> >>> > only contributed a couple of bug fixes/minor updates), I think that
> >>> > creation
> >>> > of a formal governance structure is a significant positive step.
> Given
> >>> > the
> >>> > distributed nature of the development team some level of coordination
> >>> > is
> >>> > critical, and I also think that having a set of carefully-considered
> >>> > standards about who gets a vote in terms of code direction, and how
> >>> > many of
> >>> > these votes are needed to enact substantial change (as opposed to the
> >>> > ad-hoc
> >>> > "preponderance of +1s from the mailing list" method) is an
> exceedingly
> >>> > good
> >>> > idea, as it will hopefully enhance the group's decision-making and
> make
> >>> > it
> >>> > more reflective.
> >>> >
> >>> > I also want to comment on the monthly team meetings.  In addition to
> >>> > posting
> >>> > meeting minutes, perhaps the meeting coordinator or secretary could
> >>> > organize
> >>> > an agenda for the meeting and post it to the yt-dev mailing list a
> >>> > couple of
> >>> > days ahead of time?  That way, people who are not participating in
> the
> >>> > meeting, but who may have some input on the issues at hand, have an
> >>> > opportunity to email suggestions.
> >>> >
> >>> > Finally, one other point: I can't help but notice that while the
> >>> > technical
> >>> > aspects of yt will be represented in these team meetings, there is no
> >>> > *explicit* representation of the yt user community or yt
> documentation.
> >>> > While in principle this isn't a problem -- Matt has made the point
> many
> >>> > times that the difference between user and developer isn't
> necessarily
> >>> > meaningful in our context -- I do think that having somebody involved
> >>> > whose
> >>> > explicit responsibility is to consider the questions "how will this
> >>> > impact
> >>> > the broader yt user community?" and "what's missing from the
> >>> > documentation
> >>> > that could be added or improved?" may be beneficial.
> >>>
> >>> Yes, I agree.  I actually have a few people I would submit as
> >>> nominations for this role, but it seems to me it's certainly one that
> >>> should be represented.
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> > Anyway, small nit-picks aside, I think this is a great idea.  Thanks
> to
> >>> > Britton for starting the ball rolling!
> >>> >
> >>> > --Brian
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com
> >
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Hi Britton,
> >>> >>
> >>> >> I think this is really, really important, and I'm really happy with
> >>> >> the YTEP as it stands.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> We've only gotten feedback from a few people.  I think it's really
> >>> >> important to get both positive and negative feedback from people on
> >>> >> this -- even to the level of "geez, stop taking yourselves so
> >>> >> seriously!" :)  Do you think maybe an email to the yt-users mailing
> >>> >> list would be productive?  Or even directly writing to the people
> >>> >> identified as "founding" members?
> >>> >>
> >>> >> -Matt
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 4:50 PM, Britton Smith
> >>> >> <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> >>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> > Hi everyone,
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > I have just issued a pull request to the YTEP repository
> containing
> >>> >> > an
> >>> >> > initial draft of yt team guidelines.  I encourage everyone to
> take a
> >>> >> > look at
> >>> >> > it and offer their feedback.  In case you don't get the
> >>> >> > notification,
> >>> >> > the PR
> >>> >> > can be viewed here:
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/ytep/pull-request/40/ytep-1776-team-infrastructure/diff
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > Britton
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Mon, Aug 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM, Britton Smith
> >>> >> > <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Hi Sam,
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> This is an excellent point.  I think it's important not to
> >>> >> >> overburden a
> >>> >> >> single person by being forever responsible for a large chunk of
> the
> >>> >> >> code.  I
> >>> >> >> also think it's good to give as many as are willing an
> opportunity
> >>> >> >> to
> >>> >> >> share
> >>> >> >> the role.  Perhaps there is a team of people or subcommittee that
> >>> >> >> is
> >>> >> >> responsible for figuring out who their representative is.  This
> can
> >>> >> >> be
> >>> >> >> ironed out.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> I think we've gotten enough positive response to start thinking
> >>> >> >> about a
> >>> >> >> YTEP that lays it all out.  I will start something this week, ask
> >>> >> >> for
> >>> >> >> feedback, and we can all develop this together.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> In the mean time, if you would still like to chime in on this
> >>> >> >> discussion,
> >>> >> >> please do so.
> >>> >> >> Thanks, everyone.
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> Britton
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Sun, Aug 17, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Sam Skillman
> >>> >> >> <samskillman at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Hi all,
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Britton -- I really like these ideas, and I like the member
> level
> >>> >> >>> being
> >>> >> >>> defined as write access.
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> I'm a bit more concerned about the officers designation in terms
> >>> >> >>> of
> >>> >> >>> the
> >>> >> >>> logistics of matching people with sections of the code. I could
> >>> >> >>> see
> >>> >> >>> something working where on a 6-month basis, each of the main
> areas
> >>> >> >>> in
> >>> >> >>> yt are
> >>> >> >>> assigned a lead.  That lead isn't necessarily the person who has
> >>> >> >>> written the
> >>> >> >>> most in the area, but rather a person who is willing to keep
> track
> >>> >> >>> of
> >>> >> >>> that
> >>> >> >>> area of the codebase for the next 6 months, so that when it
> comes
> >>> >> >>> to
> >>> >> >>> doing
> >>> >> >>> releases, they are the ones that know what has changed and where
> >>> >> >>> things are
> >>> >> >>> not working well.  Maybe that's too much of a process, but I
> also
> >>> >> >>> think we
> >>> >> >>> should be wary of assigning potentially long-lasting labels to
> >>> >> >>> either
> >>> >> >>> people
> >>> >> >>> or code. Semi-regular meetings for this set of people would be
> >>> >> >>> great.
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Anyways, I'm definitely a +1 on a YTEP for all of this, and look
> >>> >> >>> forward
> >>> >> >>> to hearing more!
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Cheers,
> >>> >> >>> Sam
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> On Sat, Aug 16, 2014 at 7:08 PM, B.W. Keller
> >>> >> >>> <kellerbw at mcmaster.ca>
> >>> >> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> +1, absolutely.  Right now, yt has a really high bus factor.  I
> >>> >> >>>> think
> >>> >> >>>> this would help that a lot.
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 7:40 PM, Chris Malone
> >>> >> >>>> <chris.m.malone at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> +1 as well on all suggestions
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> > On Aug 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Kenza Arraki <karraki at nmsu.edu
> >
> >>> >> >>>>> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> > I wanted to put my strong +1 out there even though I don't
> >>> >> >>>>> > respond
> >>> >> >>>>> > often to dev emails. This sounds like a great direction for
> >>> >> >>>>> > yt!
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> > -Kenza
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> > ---
> >>> >> >>>>> > Kenza Arraki
> >>> >> >>>>> > PhD candidate
> >>> >> >>>>> > New Mexico State University
> >>> >> >>>>> > Department of Astronomy
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> >>> >> >>>>> > On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 4:06 PM, Michael Zingale
> >>> >> >>>>> > <michael.zingale at stonybrook.edu> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> >> these all sound like good ideas to me.  Some simply
> operating
> >>> >> >>>>> >> procedures,
> >>> >> >>>>> >> like "don't merge your own pull requests" might be good
> too.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >> On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:50 PM, Britton Smith
> >>> >> >>>>> >> <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >>>>> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> I'm very in favor of putting some official procedures
> into a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> YTEP.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> Having
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> a codified process may also help with conflict resolution
> as
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> well.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> Apache does something with their projects where developers
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> who
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> make
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> sustained contribution are made "members" after nomination
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> by
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> another member
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> and are given write access to the main repo.  It's a small
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> thing,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> but if we
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> perhaps have an official definition of "yt member" in a
> YTEP
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> with a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> posted
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> list of members, it can be something people can point to
> as
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> way
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> demonstrating that they've done significant work on the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> project.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> I think it might also be good to have officer-like
> positions
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> where
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> people
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> are representatives for various areas of the code, such as
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> data
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> structures,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> visualization, analysis_modules, etc. and to have
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> semi-regular
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> meeting of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> these people.  This may be as much leadership as we need
> for
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> now,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> just a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> group that meets on a schedule to make sure everyone's on
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> same
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> page with
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> releases and major development efforts.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> What do people think of something like this?
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Matthew Turk
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> Hi Britton,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing this up -- it's a tough topic, but
> also
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> I
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> think
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> really important.  At the WSSSPE conference last year, a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> paper
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> was
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> submitted talking about the Apache model:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> http://figshare.com/articles/Sustainable_Cyberinfrastructure_Software_Through_Open_Governance/790761
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> which talks about a lot of related topics.  Apache does
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> some
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> interesting things.  They use the word "meritocracy"
> which
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> I am
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> rather
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> -1 on using (see, for instance,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> ) but I do think there is something to be said for a
> large
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> part
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> their methods of organization.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> Like you, I think we are overdue.  I would like to point
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> out
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> that,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> for
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> all intents and purposes, you are *already* the ombudsman
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> for
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> yt
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> community.  I don't think you're proposing we have a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> committee
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> that
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> bosses everyone around, but rather one that enables a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> larger
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> number of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> people to have a say, particularly because yt has become
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> embedded
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> in
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> many of our scientific workflows and it touches a lot of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> research
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> activities now.  I like the idea of members.  I like the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> idea
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> of a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> project management committee, but it's not clear to me
> how
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> that
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> would
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> work, or which decisions we have made recently that they
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> would
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> weigh
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> in on.  I also really like the idea of having "code
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> liasons" to
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> different data platforms and/or communities, and the idea
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> having
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> people who are responsible for many different areas of
> the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> code
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> and
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> codifying that in some way is quite attractive to me.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> For what it's worth, a few weeks ago I gave a
> presentation
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> on
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> my
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> "vision" for the future of yt (http://goo.gl/JKt6MA).
> The
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> thing
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> is,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> while I gave this presentation, it's just *my* vision --
> it
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> is
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> not
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> necessarily anyone else's vision.  And I think it's time
> we
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> have
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> some
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> method of taking into account a diverse set of opinions
> for
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> what
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> we as
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> a community can emphasize, how we resolve conflicts, and
> so
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> on
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> and
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> so
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> forth.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> Again, thanks for bringing this up.  We need to have this
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> conversation.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> -Matt
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Britton Smith
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Greeting yt developers,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> First, I want to congratulate everyone here on the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> successful
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> release
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> of yt-3.0.  This was a massive effort on the part of so
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> many
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> and
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> true testament to the strength of this team.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> At the time of writing this, there are 78 members of the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> yt-dev
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> mailing list.  As someone who does most of their work in
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> very
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> small
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> collaborations, this amazes me and make me very proud.
> In
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> case
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> you're
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> wondering, the yt-users list has 268 members.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> As a project, yt has a significant amount of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> infrastructure:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> code
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> review with pull requests, issue tracking, automated
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> testing,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> emails
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> lists, an IRC channel, enhancement proposals, workshops.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> All
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> of
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> this
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> is evidence of our legitimacy as a Real Thing.  However,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> one
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> big
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> missing piece is a system of governance.  I don't know
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> exactly
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> what
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> this means, but I have some ideas, which I will share
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> below.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> What I
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> want to do right now is to start a discussion that will,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> hopefully,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> include as many people as possible on this list.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> For me, governance means (roughly) the following:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - a set of procedures in writing for how various things
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> are to
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> be
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>  done, such as acceptance of pull requests, releases,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> designating
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>  developers as core contributors, etc.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - a governing body to make decisions and help guide the
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> project.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> This accomplishes a number of things, which as a
> project I
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> think
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> we
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> need, such as:
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - overall stability of the project.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - providing a system for conflict resolution.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - maintaining the spirit of yt as a team effort.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> - providing a way for active contributors to get credit
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> for
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> their
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>  contribution in the form of official recognition.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> So, these are my initial thoughts, but I really think
> this
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> deserves a
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> thorough discussion with as many people participating as
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> possible.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Please, think about what governance means to you,
> whether
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> we
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> need
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> it,
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> what it should be, and what we might get out of it, and
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> share
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> your
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> thoughts over the next few days.  I look forward to this
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> discussion.
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Britton
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>>
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>>
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >> --
> >>> >> >>>>> >> Michael Zingale
> >>> >> >>>>> >> Associate Professor
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >> Dept. of Physics & Astronomy • Stony Brook University •
> Stony
> >>> >> >>>>> >> Brook,
> >>> >> >>>>> >> NY
> >>> >> >>>>> >> 11794-3800
> >>> >> >>>>> >> phone:  631-632-8225
> >>> >> >>>>> >> e-mail: Michael.Zingale at stonybrook.edu
> >>> >> >>>>> >> web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> >>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >>
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> > yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> >
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > _______________________________________________
> >>> >> > yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > _______________________________________________
> >>> > yt-dev mailing list
> >>> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>> >
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> yt-dev mailing list
> >>> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> yt-dev mailing list
> >> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >>
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > yt-dev mailing list
> > yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
> >
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev at lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>

-- 
Cameron Hummels
Postdoctoral Researcher
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona
http://chummels.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140830/8ee2dfc5/attachment.htm>