[yt-dev] let's talk about Governance

Matthew Turk matthewturk at gmail.com
Mon Sep 1 13:56:51 PDT 2014


Hi Britton,

I created a pull request that adds a members page, with spots for bios.

https://bitbucket.org/yt_analysis/website/pull-request/52/adding-initial-members-page/diff

-Matt

On Sun, Aug 31, 2014 at 8:07 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
>



More information about the yt-dev mailing list