[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 10:49:32 PDT 2014


(And I hope it goes without saying that this paper would have an enormous
author list.)
On Sep 1, 2014 12:49 PM, "Matthew Turk" <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Discussing the paper is out of scope for this thread, but I have begun
> writing a yt 3 paper and was hoping to submit to the Journal of Open
> Research Software, which is OA, published the WSSSPE collection, and will
> avoid pigeon holing it as just an astro project.
> On Sep 1, 2014 12:43 PM, "Brian O'Shea" <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I hate to be the person that responds to my own post, but I also just
>> remembered that there are some new (and old) journals that might be worth
>> looking at, if one wants to publish the details of individual yt modules:
>>
>> Astronomy and Computing:
>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/astronomy-and-computing/
>>
>> Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology:
>> http://www.comp-astrophys-cosmol.com/
>>
>> Computer Physics Communications:
>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/computer-physics-communications/
>>
>> Journal of Computational Physics:
>> http://www.journals.elsevier.com/journal-of-computational-physics/
>>
>> Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific:
>> http://www.press.uchicago.edu/ucp/journals/journal/pasp.html
>>
>> If there's a truly innovative/useful piece of code, it might be worth
>> writing it up in one of those.  Some are really new (A&C, CompAC), but
>> maybe worth trying out.  These two new journals in particular seem to be
>> designed for this sort of thing - in their charters they both mention data
>> analysis and visualization software, and A&C states that this journal
>> "accepts regular scientific articles and review articles, but will also
>> consider manuscripts on new software and data releases of astronomical
>> surveys, and "reports on practice" which describe the outcomes (positive
>> and negative) of the practical application of informatics techniques within
>> astronomy research and operations... Providing a sustainable link to data
>> or source code is strongly encouraged."  This seems to include a lot of
>> what we do. And, of course, for new versions of yt, one could always
>> imagine a follow-up paper in ApJS - the original yt ApJS method paper has
>> 135 citations, as of today!
>>
>> --Brian
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:32 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/fec1148d/attachment.htm>


More information about the yt-dev mailing list