[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Michael Zingale michael.zingale at stonybrook.edu
Sat Aug 30 16:08:43 PDT 2014 

I agree with Cameron that ultimately some way of ensuring recognition for
the core developers (where len(core) < len(members)) is a good idea.  Many
(most?) of the big contributors to yt are in junior-level positions, and
getting the recognition for their efforts will be important to getting into
them more permanent positions.  Unfortunately, for computational
astrophysics, contributing to a software project doesn't carry as much
weight as a scientific study in the eyes of the committees that do the
hiring.  I don't know what the right answer is, but I think Cameron's point
needs to be discussed further, so that those people who are
concerned/curious understand the incentive structure.



On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 4:18 PM, Cameron Hummels <chummels at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>
> On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I want to emphasize that the initial list of members Britton came up
>> with (as he noted in the proposal) is only an *initial* list, and will
>> hopefully very quickly expand to include less active "developers" who
>> are nonetheless embedded in the community.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>
> And this is why I think we need a list of people who are regarded as
> "core" developers, to differentiate them from the what will likely be a
> very large list of "members".  Right now from a professional standpoint,
> there is very little benefit from contributing to the code base, in that
> very few people recognize your contributions (ie a handful of other
> developers).  Aside from a list of core developers that are highlighted on
> the webpage, or having a new yt paper come out, I don't see any other way
> in which this can be remedied.  Perhaps others have ideas?
>
>
>> >
>> > Brian
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:30 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> HI Brian,
>> >>
>> >> I couldn't agree more on having a documentation representative present
>> at
>> >> team meetings.  In fact, I think this was even in my original draft,
>> but I
>> >> somehow lost track of it.  Thanks for bringing it up.  I will get that
>> back
>> >> in there.  A community representative is also a good idea, but I'm
>> less sure
>> >> how that role would be filled.  If anyone has any thoughts on that,
>> please
>> >> do share.  If it can't be figured out before the YTEP is accepted, we
>> can
>> >> definitely amend it.  Thanks, Brian!
>> >>
>> >> Britton
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 10:16 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> 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
>> >>> >
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> 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
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Cameron Hummels
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Steward Observatory
> University of Arizona
> http://chummels.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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.spacepope.org/pipermail/yt-dev-spacepope.org/attachments/20140830/dd4dbc44/attachment.html>

More information about the yt-dev mailing list