[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Tue Aug 26 13:20:42 PDT 2014

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
>