<div dir="ltr"><div>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.</div><div><br></div>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.<div>
<br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div><div>What do people think of something like this?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 13, 2014 at 4:58 PM, Matthew Turk <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:matthewturk@gmail.com" target="_blank">matthewturk@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Britton,<br>
<br>
Thanks for bringing this up -- it's a tough topic, but also I think<br>
really important. At the WSSSPE conference last year, a paper was<br>
submitted talking about the Apache model:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://figshare.com/articles/Sustainable_Cyberinfrastructure_Software_Through_Open_Governance/790761" target="_blank">http://figshare.com/articles/Sustainable_Cyberinfrastructure_Software_Through_Open_Governance/790761</a><br>
<br>
which talks about a lot of related topics. Apache does some<br>
interesting things. They use the word "meritocracy" which I am rather<br>
-1 on using (see, for instance,<br>
<a href="http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community" target="_blank">http://www.ashedryden.com/blog/the-ethics-of-unpaid-labor-and-the-oss-community</a><br>
) but I do think there is something to be said for a large part of<br>
their methods of organization.<br>
<br>
Like you, I think we are overdue. I would like to point out that, for<br>
all intents and purposes, you are *already* the ombudsman for the yt<br>
community. I don't think you're proposing we have a committee that<br>
bosses everyone around, but rather one that enables a larger number of<br>
people to have a say, particularly because yt has become embedded in<br>
many of our scientific workflows and it touches a lot of research<br>
activities now. I like the idea of members. I like the idea of a<br>
project management committee, but it's not clear to me how that would<br>
work, or which decisions we have made recently that they would weigh<br>
in on. I also really like the idea of having "code liasons" to<br>
different data platforms and/or communities, and the idea of having<br>
people who are responsible for many different areas of the code and<br>
codifying that in some way is quite attractive to me.<br>
<br>
For what it's worth, a few weeks ago I gave a presentation on my<br>
"vision" for the future of yt (<a href="http://goo.gl/JKt6MA" target="_blank">http://goo.gl/JKt6MA</a>). The thing is,<br>
while I gave this presentation, it's just *my* vision -- it is not<br>
necessarily anyone else's vision. And I think it's time we have some<br>
method of taking into account a diverse set of opinions for what we as<br>
a community can emphasize, how we resolve conflicts, and so on and so<br>
forth.<br>
<br>
Again, thanks for bringing this up. We need to have this conversation.<br>
<br>
-Matt<br>
<div><br>
On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 4:11 PM, Britton Smith <<a href="mailto:brittonsmith@gmail.com" target="_blank">brittonsmith@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
</div><div><div>> Greeting yt developers,<br>
><br>
> First, I want to congratulate everyone here on the successful release<br>
> of yt-3.0. This was a massive effort on the part of so many and a<br>
> true testament to the strength of this team.<br>
><br>
> At the time of writing this, there are 78 members of the yt-dev<br>
> mailing list. As someone who does most of their work in very small<br>
> collaborations, this amazes me and make me very proud. In case you're<br>
> wondering, the yt-users list has 268 members.<br>
><br>
> As a project, yt has a significant amount of infrastructure: code<br>
> review with pull requests, issue tracking, automated testing, emails<br>
> lists, an IRC channel, enhancement proposals, workshops. All of this<br>
> is evidence of our legitimacy as a Real Thing. However, one big<br>
> missing piece is a system of governance. I don't know exactly what<br>
> this means, but I have some ideas, which I will share below. What I<br>
> want to do right now is to start a discussion that will, hopefully,<br>
> include as many people as possible on this list.<br>
><br>
> For me, governance means (roughly) the following:<br>
><br>
> - a set of procedures in writing for how various things are to be<br>
> done, such as acceptance of pull requests, releases, designating<br>
> developers as core contributors, etc.<br>
><br>
> - a governing body to make decisions and help guide the project.<br>
><br>
> This accomplishes a number of things, which as a project I think we<br>
> need, such as:<br>
><br>
> - overall stability of the project.<br>
><br>
> - providing a system for conflict resolution.<br>
><br>
> - maintaining the spirit of yt as a team effort.<br>
><br>
> - providing a way for active contributors to get credit for their<br>
> contribution in the form of official recognition.<br>
><br>
><br>
> So, these are my initial thoughts, but I really think this deserves a<br>
> thorough discussion with as many people participating as possible.<br>
> Please, think about what governance means to you, whether we need it,<br>
> what it should be, and what we might get out of it, and share your<br>
> thoughts over the next few days. I look forward to this discussion.<br>
><br>
> Britton<br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div><div><div>> _______________________________________________<br>
> yt-dev mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org" target="_blank">yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org</a><br>
><br>
_______________________________________________<br>
yt-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org" target="_blank">yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org" target="_blank">http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>