On Tue, Aug 12, 2014 at 2:11 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.

+1 on formalizing our practices for all of this.  This should be a YTEP.

- a governing body to make decisions and help guide the project.

Can you expand a bit more what you have in mind for what this governing body could be? 

In the past we've made decisions in the open and democratically, usually by a preponderance of people giving a +1 on something.

I can certainly see why having something like this would be useful for conflict resolution but I don't really like the idea of having leadership or a BDFL.  Perhaps this should instead by an ombudsman whose task is to guide conflict resolution discussions?

From a purely legal perspective, NumFocus provides an "official" framework we can operate under.  According to the NumFocus website, we're an "associated project", although it's not clear to me what the distinction between the "associated", "core", and "other" projects is with respect to NumFocus.

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.


yt-dev mailing list