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
e-mail: Michael.Zingale@stonybrook.edu
web: http://www.astro.sunysb.edu/mzingale