[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Mon Aug 18 04:24:20 PDT 2014

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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140818/92f632b5/attachment.html>