[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Sam Skillman samskillman at gmail.com
Sun Aug 17 08:20:46 PDT 2014


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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140817/a2dc1cb8/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list