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_Throug...
> > 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-commun...
> ) 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