[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Britton Smith brittonsmith at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 14:50:38 PDT 2014


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
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140825/a5d58a4e/attachment.html>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list