[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Fri Aug 15 16:32:08 PDT 2014

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
>