[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Fri Aug 29 14:16:12 PDT 2014

Hi Brian,

On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi folks,
>
> Chiming in as somebody who is on the far periphery of yt development (having
> only contributed a couple of bug fixes/minor updates), I think that creation
> of a formal governance structure is a significant positive step.  Given the
> distributed nature of the development team some level of coordination is
> critical, and I also think that having a set of carefully-considered
> standards about who gets a vote in terms of code direction, and how many of
> these votes are needed to enact substantial change (as opposed to the ad-hoc
> "preponderance of +1s from the mailing list" method) is an exceedingly good
> idea, as it will hopefully enhance the group's decision-making and make it
> more reflective.
>
> I also want to comment on the monthly team meetings.  In addition to posting
> meeting minutes, perhaps the meeting coordinator or secretary could organize
> an agenda for the meeting and post it to the yt-dev mailing list a couple of
> days ahead of time?  That way, people who are not participating in the
> meeting, but who may have some input on the issues at hand, have an
> opportunity to email suggestions.
>
> Finally, one other point: I can't help but notice that while the technical
> aspects of yt will be represented in these team meetings, there is no
> *explicit* representation of the yt user community or yt documentation.
> While in principle this isn't a problem -- Matt has made the point many
> times that the difference between user and developer isn't necessarily
> meaningful in our context -- I do think that having somebody involved whose
> explicit responsibility is to consider the questions "how will this impact
> the broader yt user community?" and "what's missing from the documentation
> that could be added or improved?" may be beneficial.

Yes, I agree.  I actually have a few people I would submit as
nominations for this role, but it seems to me it's certainly one that
should be represented.

>
> Anyway, small nit-picks aside, I think this is a great idea.  Thanks to
> Britton for starting the ball rolling!
>
> --Brian
>
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 26, 2014 at 4:20 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>