+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