[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Brian O'Shea bwoshea at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 10:32:37 PDT 2014


I'd like to second Britton's suggestion, and elaborate on them a bit.  I've
been on both sides of this particular issue - applying for jobs, and also
looking at peoples' CVs for postdocs and faculty positions - and it's tough
to get "credit" for software in the same way that you get credit for
peer-reviewed journal articles, particularly if you're developing a
community code like yt (or Enzo).  But, it's easier when somebody has made
well-defined and significant contributions to a particular project, has
documented that in various ways (i.e., in a bio, Open HUB, your CV, etc.),
and in particular when that person's letter-writers have talked about it in
their letters and put it in context (i.e., "Dr. X was the primary developer
of yt's widely-used Foo Generator module, wrote the underlying parallel
infrastructure that allows it to strongly scale to 300 quintillion cores
for arbitrarily small data volumes, and has been active in improving this
code and supporting its use in the yt user community for the past four
years.  The Foo Generator has been a key part of the analysis done in at
least 14 journal articles since its first release, the majority of which
would not have been written were it not for Dr. X's contribution to yt.
 Furthermore, Dr. X has played key roles in the development of X, Y, and Z
modules for Enzo, which demonstrates Dr. X's understanding of a wide
variety of numerical algorithms, particularly for large-scale parallel
computing."

So, my elaboration on Britton's suggestion is really to take advantage of
the bios to lay out what peoples' major contributions have been to the yt
project, which is useful for lots of purposes - including giving
information to potential employers, letter-writers, and people who are
looking to update individual pieces of yt but don't know who they should
talk to.  It's not perfect, but it could help a bit.

Also, to the original point: I think that making tiers of contributors
(i.e., "core" vs. "the teeming masses") is a recipe for resentment in the
long term, as it becomes exclusive rather than inclusive.  I can imagine a
variety of conversations taking place, if only in somebody's head:  "Core
Developer X hasn't contributed in two years, and I've been really active
for the past eighteen months - why are they still listed as a core
developer and I'm not one?"  or, "If the requirement is X changesets, I can
game the system by making lots of very small changes and thus become a core
developer."  or, "If only the core developers get a say in the direction of
the code, why should I even bother contributing?" And so on.  Of course,
it's reasonable to call yourself a core developer, and to ask
letter-writers to mention that you are one, but establishing a formal set
of requirements seems like it's asking for trouble.

--Brian



On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 9:07 AM, Britton Smith <brittonsmith at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Cameron,
>
> I think this is a very valid issue that you raise.  I have a couple
> concerns about creating a tier of "core" contributors on top of the member
> tier.  I also have another idea at the end.
>
> First, it is not clear to me the process by which we would establish the
> bar for a core contributor.  I was comfortable with doing this rather
> ad-hoc for member status because it was designed to be inclusive and to
> establish a way that we could make decisions as a team.  However, I don't
> think we can do that for this since it is creating a more exclusive group.
>  If something like this is going to be created, then I think it needs to be
> done through the body of members that we will soon have.  Otherwise, I
> don't know how it can be done fairly.
>
> Second, I'm not sure that designating core contributors will be any more
> effective at properly crediting people for their work.  At the end of the
> day, it will be another label that says in rather general terms that
> someone is very important to a project.  I have been referring to myself as
> a core developer on job applications for a few years now and I don't think
> it's gotten me anything.  Maybe that would change if there were an official
> definition of that term.
>
> I would like to put forth another idea that could perhaps accomplish the
> same goal.  Following the YTEP on governance, we are going to create a
> webpage on yt-project.org with an official definition of yt member status
> and a list of all members.  I think it would be good if we allow those
> members to write bios for themselves that are linked to off of the member
> page.  Those bios could contain anything you would want someone to know
> about your involvement in the project: how long you've been around, what
> features you've worked on, a link to your page on openhub.net, any other
> activities or things you've been a part of, whatever you want.  That way
> you can not only be seen as a important person, but can get the specific
> credit that you deserve.  Other people could even point out things that one
> might have missed.  Maybe this will help the project seem less like a
> monolith and more like a lot of individual valuable pieces.
>
> In conclusion, I am not totally opposed to core status, as long as it can
> be created in a fair and open way, but I would also really like to hear
> what people think about the bios.
>
> Britton
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 12:08 AM, Michael Zingale <
> michael.zingale at stonybrook.edu> wrote:
>
>> 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
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140901/dbeefce6/attachment.htm>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list