[WIP] Reboot of CEP7 development by gonuke · Pull Request #296 · cyclus/cyclus.github.com

gonuke · 2019-10-15T16:05:04Z

In light of possible expansions and changes to the Cyclus community, I am rebooting the consideration of CEP7.

jbae11 · 2019-10-15T16:33:11Z

@gonuke Thank you for putting this together! If I understand correctly, there is now going to be a process to become a Cyclus developer?

gonuke · 2019-10-15T16:58:02Z

@jbae11 - This is not about a process to become a developer - we don't need an more obstacles there.

This is about a process to govern a community of those who effectively volunteer their effort to that community.

jbae11

Thanks!

source/cep/cep7.rst

@jbae11

Fix typos - thans @jbae11

munkm · 2024-03-20T20:28:16Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+governance within this organization.  Membership in this organization is
+governed by a process defined below.
+
+Council of Principal Investigators


Some thoughts about the council:

If a community manager exists, their perspective would be really useful in the council. Maybe it would be helpful to reframe this council as a "leadership" council that is encoded to have a set of PIs on it

The perspective of a person who is exclusively a user, and not a developer, can be helpful at a top level council making decisions. Would it be helpful to add in a role for this council that fills this representation?

Two thoughts on these two good thoughts.

With respect to the community manager, I think this makes sense in principle. But, in practicality: No community manager exists at this time, and it's hard for me to imagine a Cyclus community manager that isn't PI (or Co-PI) of any funded work. So, if a Cyclus community manager exists, that person is probably also already included as a PI. My tendency would be to leave this as-is until there is, someday, a non-PI community manager.

With respect to the person who is exclusively a user -- again, great idea in principle, but in practice, I see some issues. A single user is never representative of all users. And, a user who is exclusively a user but also sufficiently interested to be part of a council of PIs, is very likely, at least in the Cyclus universe, to become a developer fairly quickly. I would suggest that the council should simply be expected to to gather population-level input from the whole exclusive-user population on a routine basis, especially when that input is useful for decisions.

It seems like we still need to define how membership on the Council of PIs is formally defined (given the ???? below :) ). I know that we once discussed it being PIs who are explicitly funded to work on Cyclus, but I wonder if that's complete enough? We could always start with that and go from there.

Honestly, I think I'm probably the closest we have to a community manager right now, although I'm not sure if we have a formal definition for that anywhere. Also, how would this council of PIs interact with the BDFP discussed in CEP 1? Do we have an outline of the council's responsibilities?

munkm · 2024-03-20T20:32:21Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+   technical grounds.
+6. Changes are adopted when at least one member of the Organization has
+   approved the changes and no members of the Organization are blocking the
+   changes.


For more substantive changes (new features maybe?) it might be worth adding in a requirement that a PR is open for a period of time (perhaps two weeks?) before merging is allowed. That way community members have time to weigh in even if they aren't able to attend a development meeting where new features are getting pushed forwards.

I'm a little concerned about this 2 week timeout. Sometimes event big changes need to happen quickly. I'm sure that most PRs stay open at least that long anyway, but when one needs to be merged quickly, it would be a shame for this kind of rule to stand in its way. There's nothing fatal about merging something that someone may wish fixed later -- it's not ideal, but it doesn't become set in stone. If someone's PR creates a sufficiently serious issue for someone that they would have otherwise stood in the way of it being pulled -- they can always create an issue and PR to fix it (or even revert it). There's no deadline one that.

We do have a CEP on PRs into Cyclus (https://fuelcycle.org/cep/cep6.html). We'll need to make sure that this CEP does not conflict with what we have here -- or have this CEP point to that one regarding PRs.

munkm · 2024-03-20T20:34:21Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+
+:CEP: 7
+:Title: Cyclus Community Constitution
+:Last-Modified: 2015-08-18


If this CEP gets updated as a result of this meeting (or the hackathon) then we should update this (or do we have a bot that handles it?)

Suggested change

:Last-Modified: 2015-08-18

:Last-Modified: 2024-03-21

I don't think there's a bot... We probably need to do that manually and the clock is still ticking. Maybe I should look into a bot...

munkm · 2024-03-20T20:37:03Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+:CEP: 7
+:Title: Cyclus Community Constitution
+:Last-Modified: 2015-08-18
+:Author: Paul Wilson


Do reviewers count as authors for CEPs?

katyhuff · 2024-05-22T13:39:47Z

It appears I've been ignoring this review request for 5 years. Madicken (@munkm ) seems to have done a recent review. Is my review still needed?

gonuke · 2024-05-23T02:09:02Z

Since CEP7 is about governance, I think your input would still be valuable

munkm · 2024-05-23T21:05:29Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+Best Practices
+---------------
+
+(should these be in their own CEP)
+
+1. Substantive changes to the work of others should require those others to
+   comment during the review process.
+2. Individual pull requests should be as small as possible to facilitate
+   timely review.
+3. Before embarking on long time-intensive changes, it is wise to collect the
+   opinion of the |Cyclus| community on the value of such changes, generally
+   through the mailing list.


I like the idea of having a development best practices CEP (I think this is what is commented on in l135?). This section isn't specific to governance and broad decision making, but it is something we want to encourage (or require?) community members to practice.

We do have a CEP specifically for archetype development best practices: https://fuelcycle.org/cep/cep5.html. If we made a best development practices CEP, would we want this CEP to point to that one? Let's make sure nothing is contradicting between CEPs.

katyhuff · 2025-05-13T16:37:52Z

I think this looks good.
As long as the modified date is up to date, I approve of this.

katyhuff

As long as the last-modified date is correct, I approve.

gonuke · 2025-05-13T22:13:31Z

Alas... the document is actually incomplete, as written, and I'd welcome PR's or other modes to suggest improvements, particularly to those incomplete places. For example:

we haven't defined who makes up the Council of PIs
there is no elaboration on the design philosophies points on Scalability, Sustainability, Usability
do we need to define a formal grievance process?

abachma2 · 2025-05-23T14:18:12Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+   technical grounds.
+6. Changes are adopted when at least one member of the Organization has
+   approved the changes and no members of the Organization are blocking the
+   changes.


We do have a CEP on PRs into Cyclus (https://fuelcycle.org/cep/cep6.html). We'll need to make sure that this CEP does not conflict with what we have here -- or have this CEP point to that one regarding PRs.

abachma2 · 2025-05-23T14:20:33Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+Best Practices
+---------------
+
+(should these be in their own CEP)
+
+1. Substantive changes to the work of others should require those others to
+   comment during the review process.
+2. Individual pull requests should be as small as possible to facilitate
+   timely review.
+3. Before embarking on long time-intensive changes, it is wise to collect the
+   opinion of the |Cyclus| community on the value of such changes, generally
+   through the mailing list.


We do have a CEP specifically for archetype development best practices: https://fuelcycle.org/cep/cep5.html. If we made a best development practices CEP, would we want this CEP to point to that one? Let's make sure nothing is contradicting between CEPs.

abachma2 · 2025-05-23T14:23:54Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+
+Escalation to this response implies that previous attempts to resolve the
+situation were unsuccessful and/or that there is an emerging pattern of
+transgression.  The PI are included both to make them aware of the situation


There is a grammar mismatch here: PI is singular, are is plural. Are you intending "PI" as in the council of PIs? Or just one of the PIs on the council?

abachma2 · 2025-05-23T14:55:26Z

source/cep/cep7.rst

+governance within this organization.  Membership in this organization is
+governed by a process defined below.
+
+Council of Principal Investigators


Honestly, I think I'm probably the closest we have to a community manager right now, although I'm not sure if we have a formal definition for that anywhere. Also, how would this council of PIs interact with the BDFP discussed in CEP 1? Do we have an outline of the council's responsibilities?

Paul P.H. Wilson added 3 commits October 15, 2019 11:00

Starting CEP7, but still need a lot more work.

a6a1ee3

Finished capturing notes from July meeting

8ed1cf0

Log the URLs of come other codes of conduct.

81f5bf8

gonuke requested review from jbae11 and katyhuff October 15, 2019 16:05

jbae11 approved these changes Oct 16, 2019

View reviewed changes

source/cep/cep7.rst Show resolved Hide resolved

source/cep/cep7.rst Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved

gonuke changed the title ~~Reboot of CEP7 development~~ [WIP] Reboot of CEP7 development Oct 16, 2019

Update cep7.rst

48a6886

Fix typos - thans @jbae11

munkm reviewed Mar 20, 2024

View reviewed changes

munkm reviewed May 23, 2024

View reviewed changes

gonuke mentioned this pull request Nov 28, 2024

Replace @scopatz in CEP01 #393

Merged

katyhuff approved these changes May 13, 2025

View reviewed changes

abachma2 reviewed May 23, 2025

View reviewed changes

abachma2 mentioned this pull request May 23, 2025

Add a README for the organization cyclus/.github#3

Merged

Conversation

gonuke commented Oct 15, 2019

Uh oh!

jbae11 commented Oct 15, 2019

Uh oh!

gonuke commented Oct 15, 2019

Uh oh!

jbae11 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

katyhuff commented May 22, 2024

Uh oh!

gonuke commented May 23, 2024

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

katyhuff commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

katyhuff left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

gonuke commented May 13, 2025

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants