Moving SciPy project organization forward
Hi all, The next weeks/months I should have quite a bit of bandwidth, which I'd like to use to push forward a few things related to project organization that we've mostly discussed before but never really finalized. The below is a summary of my view on where we are and where we need to go. To discuss individual topics I'll send separate follow-up emails with separate subjects. What we have: - Reasonably good docs for new contributors and core devs. - Established community process for communication and decision making. - A healthy group of active contributors and core devs. - A project that's overall in good shape. What we need: - Set up a mailing list for the core team. - Draft and accept a governance model & docs. - Draft and accept a Code of Conduct (CoC) or "community guidelines" [1] or similar. - Agree on an FSA with NumFOCUS. - Merge the roadmap PR. - Agree on when to do a 1.0 release, and what still has to happen for that. Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list). Governance model & docs ----------------------- We had some discussions and a hangout on that last year [2]. In the hangout we decided to give people some time to read up on provided info on how this worked in other projects, the Karl Fogel book [4], etc. I was supposed to organize a follow-up, but failed to do so until now. I will send a separate email about this shortly. CoC or similar -------------- This is pretty standard to have nowadays, can be welcoming to new people, and is required now by all projects that join NumFOCUS. I'll send a separate email about this later on - probably right after we've merged a governance document. Fiscal Sponsorship Agreement (FSA) ---------------------------------- We need this so we have all our ducks in a row to start dealing with funding/donations in a better way. We did get donations in the past, and even used that money to support the MingwPy project to help improve our Fortran-on-Windows situation. This was OK as a one-off for a very small amount of money, but this needs to be organized better. We also do get people who come up with ideas that would improve SciPy a lot and that we could have supported with some money, had we had the infrastructure for that in place. Let's come back to this as well once we have governance and CoC documents (those are prerequisites). Roadmap PR (gh-2908) -------------------- Let's just pick a date at which the thing [3] has to be merged, in the state it is in then (updated for comments received). And then start improving it with new PRs if needed. Leaving the PR open until everything is perfect hasn't quite worked so far. I'll propose a date 2 weeks from now on the PR itself. SciPy 1.0 --------- We've discussed this several times before. We're now at the point where most of the major gaps have been filled though, so it looks to me like it's time to just pick a date for it (either after or instead of 0.19.0) and then fix up the last things that we think we really need for a 1.0 release. I'll send a separate email about this shortly. Ralf [1] https://github.com/scikit-image/scikit-image-web/pull/36 [2] https://mail.scipy.org/pipermail/scipy-dev/2015-April/020636.html [3] https://github.com/scipy/scipy/pull/2908 [4] http://producingoss.com/
Hi Ralf, Thanks for this great and promising announcement.
Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list).
Stéfan is moving out scikit-image ML to a list hosted on Python.org. I don't know the details, but I guess it's a place to look at and anything else than GAFAM would be appreciated. Best, -- François Boulogne. http://www.sciunto.org GPG: 32D5F22F
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:09 AM, François Boulogne <fboulogne@sciunto.org> wrote:
Hi Ralf,
Thanks for this great and promising announcement.
Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list).
Stéfan is moving out scikit-image ML to a list hosted on Python.org. I don't know the details, but I guess it's a place to look at and anything else than GAFAM would be appreciated.
Keep in mind that this is a private list for ~15-20 people, so easy of setup and maintenance is key. If we'd move the main scipy-user and scipy-dev lists, yes definitely I would prefer python.org. Ralf
Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list).
+1 A fun note in passing: discussing the commit rights on such a list would actually make things more open, since a new dev would get access to past discussions including the one about giving them commit rights :-). (And no, I'm not suggesting this is a problem.) Maybe we should also consider setting up some communication channels with higher bandwidth --- handouts or conference calls. Yes, time zones is a problem. And yes, the conference call last year went into more tangents than it could have. But maybe if we manage to make these conference calls somewhat more regular, we'd be able to have more manageable agendas for each of them. I wonder how it worked back in times of the numpy doc marathon, were there regular conf calls, did they work? Evgeni
On Tue, Sep 6, 2016 at 7:21 AM, Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
Mailing list ------------ This is not so we do more in private, but just to be more efficient in the small number of conversations that already happens in private (like giving out commit rights). The core team has grown large enough that we tend to forget people or use an old email address. I will set this one up within a week, probably using Google Groups (if anyone has a better idea, please speak up). My plan is to add all active core devs, and send other people with commit rights a personal email about this to ask if they want to be on it (because not everyone follows this list).
+1
A fun note in passing: discussing the commit rights on such a list would actually make things more open, since a new dev would get access to past discussions including the one about giving them commit rights :-). (And no, I'm not suggesting this is a problem.)
Agreed, that's a good thing. It gives new devs a picture of how decisions were made in the past.
Maybe we should also consider setting up some communication channels with higher bandwidth --- handouts or conference calls. Yes, time zones is a problem. And yes, the conference call last year went into more tangents than it could have. But maybe if we manage to make these conference calls somewhat more regular, we'd be able to have more manageable agendas for each of them.
Yes, that could work. If we have a clear agenda and don't have to discuss changing the world each time, it may be productive. What were you thinking, like once every 6-8 weeks or so?
I wonder how it worked back in times of the numpy doc marathon, were there regular conf calls, did they work?
There were, IIRC once a month. Those were reasonably productive I think, but that was a small group (4-5 people) and a single topic. So hard to compare. Cheers, Ralf
Maybe we should also consider setting up some communication channels
with higher bandwidth --- handouts or conference calls. Yes, time zones is a problem. And yes, the conference call last year went into more tangents than it could have. But maybe if we manage to make these conference calls somewhat more regular, we'd be able to have more manageable agendas for each of them.
Yes, that could work. If we have a clear agenda and don't have to discuss changing the world each time, it may be productive. What were you thinking, like once every 6-8 weeks or so?
That sounds like a reasonable timing estimate, as it gets us a few meetings in between releases without adding too much burden (for me at least). Eric
On Wed, Sep 7, 2016 at 2:13 AM, Eric Larson <larson.eric.d@gmail.com> wrote:
Maybe we should also consider setting up some communication channels
with higher bandwidth --- handouts or conference calls. Yes, time zones is a problem. And yes, the conference call last year went into more tangents than it could have. But maybe if we manage to make these conference calls somewhat more regular, we'd be able to have more manageable agendas for each of them.
Yes, that could work. If we have a clear agenda and don't have to discuss changing the world each time, it may be productive. What were you thinking, like once every 6-8 weeks or so?
That sounds like a reasonable timing estimate, as it gets us a few meetings in between releases without adding too much burden (for me at least).
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the first one for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s). Ralf
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Evgeni Burovski <evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com
wrote:
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the first one for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s).
+1.
Looking at time zones, what will work best is evening in Europe, which is daytime in the US and early morning in Australasia. Here is a poll: http://whenisgood.net/bdkqjkr. I'll pick a time based on responses in 3 days; if there are more than fit in Google Hangout (10) I'll look for an alternative. Everyone who's interested welcome I'd say. I'll put the agenda and call details on a GitHub wiki page, then people can add proposed topics to the agenda. Cheers, Ralf
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Evgeni Burovski < evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the first one for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s).
+1.
Looking at time zones, what will work best is evening in Europe, which is daytime in the US and early morning in Australasia. Here is a poll: http://whenisgood.net/bdkqjkr. I'll pick a time based on responses in 3 days; if there are more than fit in Google Hangout (10) I'll look for an alternative. Everyone who's interested welcome I'd say.
I'll put the agenda and call details on a GitHub wiki page, then people can add proposed topics to the agenda.
Okay, it'll be 6pm UTC on 14 Oct. Here are the details: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/wiki/SciPy-development-Hangouts. Response to the poll was a bit low; please add your name on the wiki page if you plan to join (I need a change of plans for 10+ people). Cheers, Ralf
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Evgeni Burovski < evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the first one for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s).
+1.
Looking at time zones, what will work best is evening in Europe, which is daytime in the US and early morning in Australasia. Here is a poll: http://whenisgood.net/bdkqjkr. I'll pick a time based on responses in 3 days; if there are more than fit in Google Hangout (10) I'll look for an alternative. Everyone who's interested welcome I'd say.
I'll put the agenda and call details on a GitHub wiki page, then people can add proposed topics to the agenda.
Okay, it'll be 6pm UTC on 14 Oct. Here are the details: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/wiki/SciPy-development-Hangouts. Response to the poll was a bit low; please add your name on the wiki page if you plan to join (I need a change of plans for 10+ people).
Sorry, correction: 7pm UTC. That's 6am for Andrew, anything earlier is too cruel. And it's then 11pm in Moscow I believe, Evgeni indicated he could make that time. Still middle of the day in the US, so those with a conflict may be able to shift a meeting. Cheers, Ralf
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Evgeni Burovski < evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the first one for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s).
+1.
Looking at time zones, what will work best is evening in Europe, which is daytime in the US and early morning in Australasia. Here is a poll: http://whenisgood.net/bdkqjkr. I'll pick a time based on responses in 3 days; if there are more than fit in Google Hangout (10) I'll look for an alternative. Everyone who's interested welcome I'd say.
I'll put the agenda and call details on a GitHub wiki page, then people can add proposed topics to the agenda.
Okay, it'll be 6pm UTC on 14 Oct. Here are the details: https://github.com/scipy/scipy/wiki/SciPy-development-Hangouts. Response to the poll was a bit low; please add your name on the wiki page if you plan to join (I need a change of plans for 10+ people).
Sorry, correction: 7pm UTC.
That's 6am for Andrew, anything earlier is too cruel. And it's then 11pm in Moscow I believe, Evgeni indicated he could make that time. Still middle of the day in the US, so those with a conflict may be able to shift a meeting.
Reminder just in case you didn't see these links on the wiki: - Link to connect: https://hangouts.google.com/call/3rb6vaez7bf63e6ih4qhxtsuaqe - Minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srVFUvxEUOKzJBuCI8oqn17D7TYLcLIwMJKFRRD4... Start in 10 minutes. Ralf
On Oct 14, 2016 9:51 PM, "Ralf Gommers" <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
On Sat, Oct 8, 2016 at 9:50 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 8:36 PM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com>
wrote:
On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 6:12 AM, Evgeni Burovski <
evgeny.burovskiy@gmail.com> wrote:
Now that the mailing list is alive again: how about I organize the
first one
for say 2 weeks from now? Proposed topic: producing (a) paper(s).
+1.
Looking at time zones, what will work best is evening in Europe, which is daytime in the US and early morning in Australasia. Here is a poll: http://whenisgood.net/bdkqjkr. I'll pick a time based on responses in 3 days; if there are more than fit in Google Hangout (10) I'll look for an alternative. Everyone who's interested welcome I'd say.
I'll put the agenda and call details on a GitHub wiki page, then
Okay, it'll be 6pm UTC on 14 Oct. Here are the details:
https://github.com/scipy/scipy/wiki/SciPy-development-Hangouts. Response to
wrote: people can add proposed topics to the agenda. the poll was a bit low; please add your name on the wiki page if you plan to join (I need a change of plans for 10+ people).
Sorry, correction: 7pm UTC.
That's 6am for Andrew, anything earlier is too cruel. And it's then 11pm
in Moscow I believe, Evgeni indicated he could make that time. Still middle of the day in the US, so those with a conflict may be able to shift a meeting.
Reminder just in case you didn't see these links on the wiki: - Link to connect: https://hangouts.google.com/call/3rb6vaez7bf63e6ih4qhxtsuaqe - Minutes: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1srVFUvxEUOKzJBuCI8oqn17D7TYLcLIwMJKFRRD4...
Start in 10 minutes.
Ralf
_______________________________________________ SciPy-Dev mailing list SciPy-Dev@scipy.org https://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-dev
Thanks for organizing it Ralf!
On Mon, Sep 5, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Ralf Gommers <ralf.gommers@gmail.com> wrote:
Roadmap PR (gh-2908) -------------------- Let's just pick a date at which the thing [3] has to be merged, in the state it is in then (updated for comments received). And then start improving it with new PRs if needed. Leaving the PR open until everything is perfect hasn't quite worked so far. I'll propose a date 2 weeks from now on the PR itself.
FYI, this is now merged: http://scipy.github.io/devdocs/roadmap.html https://github.com/scipy/scipy/blob/master/doc/ROADMAP.rst.txt Ralf
participants (4)
-
Eric Larson -
Evgeni Burovski -
François Boulogne -
Ralf Gommers