I am in favor of Britton's bios suggestions, and share the experience that Brian very nicely summed up about being on both sides of the process.  The bios seem like an excellent step to get the yt developers who have made major contributions a place to list them and others to appreciate them.  

I'll add that I have submitted something to A&C and found the referee process very useful -- the referee, perhaps someone on this list?, went through the code I was describing line-by-line with very helpful suggestions.  It seems like it could be a good place for these sort of things.


On Mon, Sep 1, 2014 at 1:49 PM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@gmail.com> wrote:

(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@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@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:


Computational Astrophysics and Cosmology:  http://www.comp-astrophys-cosmol.com/



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@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@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@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@gmail.com> wrote:



On Sat, Aug 30, 2014 at 9:50 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk@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@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@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi Brian,
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 3:32 PM, Brian O'Shea <bwoshea@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@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@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@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@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@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@gmail.com>
>>> >> >>>> wrote:
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> +1 as well on all suggestions
>>> >> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> > On Aug 15, 2014, at 5:32 PM, Kenza Arraki <karraki@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@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@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@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@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@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> >>>>>
>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> >>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>> >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>> >>>
>>> >> >>>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> >>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> >>> yt-dev@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@stonybrook.edu
>>> >> >>>>> >> web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale
>>> >> >>>>> >>
>>> >> >>>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> > yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >> >>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> >>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> >>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >>>
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > _______________________________________________
>>> >> > yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >> >
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> yt-dev mailing list
>>> >> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> >> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > yt-dev mailing list
>>> > yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> > http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> yt-dev mailing list
>>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> yt-dev mailing list
>> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
>> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> yt-dev mailing list
> yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
> http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org
>
_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org



--
Cameron Hummels
Postdoctoral Researcher
Steward Observatory
University of Arizona

_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@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

_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org



_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org




_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@lists.spacepope.org
http://lists.spacepope.org/listinfo.cgi/yt-dev-spacepope.org


_______________________________________________
yt-dev mailing list
yt-dev@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@stonybrook.edu
web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale