-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 99
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add strategic planning role #584
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
I announced this at https://groups.google.com/g/astropy-dev/c/ndxxWPl-gb4 , thus starting the two-week timer. FYI. |
I would suggest to leave this open to the coordination meeting. A lot of strategic planning should happen there! Personally, I'm also interested in these things. However, there is a question of how we organize in practice. In my experience, strategic planning is one of those things that profit from real-time talk (in person or on zoom), unlike, e.g. subpackage maintaining (which can be done fine asynchronosly on GH). |
Given the meeting is less than 2 months away, sure, we can wait. I added to ideas here: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
One member expressed desire to wait till Coordination meeting, so I am blocking merge for now. Thanks!
Just an idea - it seems this would effectively be a steering committee? If so it might be worth considering using a name like this so that it is more familiar for external people, if it becomes an entity that does grow beyond the CoCo. |
@hamogu - totally agree as much of this as possible could happen at coordination meetings and dev telecons. That's the right place to do things like set the strategic goals, etc since it is a larger swathe of the community. The problem is in execution - right now it's not attached to any role, which means it has defaulted to the CoCo as the main body that picks up organizational things that no one else is doing but need doing (not formally per se, just by convention), and we were hoping to make that explicit and allow others who might be interested to join without having to also be on the CoCo. So in my mind this group is as much focused on making sure this stuff happens (where "this stuff" includes "preparing for and having all the needed conversations at the Coordination meeting"), rather than on actually setting the strategy per se. I could definitely see re-word this to emphasize that point though, since I can see how the first bullet might read as "this group sets the strategy". Do you have any suggested wording for that or should I take a shot at it? @astrofrog - hmm, I see what you're saying, but for me "steering committee" sounds more like what the CoCo does in its regular role - i.e., not long-term vision but keeping the boat going in a particular direction. But I dunno, I also tend to make new names because of subtle differences and you're right that it might just confuse matters further... |
Oh, and @hamogu , re-reading your message, I'm not clear on this: were you saying we should discuss whether to create this role at the coordination meeting (as @pllim interpreted it) or that this role should partly be done by the coordination meeting (as I interpreted it). Or both? Just trying to understand if you were saying action on this should wait on the meeting or not. (In practice it probably doesn't really matter, since the CoCo is already likely to bring up the strategic items at the meeting as it stands, but I think it will make it slightly easier to recruit folks at the coordination meeting if this roles exists by then since we can say "do you want to join the group?" rather than "do you want to join a group that may or may not exist?") |
Answering my own question - out-of-band (in the developer telecon) @hamogu said the answer was "both" - which I am totally fine with, just wanted the clarification. |
The coordination meeting does fill this role - that's what it is for. So, that should be reflected in the description of the role (e.g. "stratetic planning in between coordination meetings" or "monitoring ... as set by coordination meetings". But I also think that this role should be created at the coordination meeting. It's more open and inclusive to ask for interested parties there, than to pre-fill the role with default names first. |
So this is more like "strategic plans enforcer" instead of "strategic planning"? 🤔 |
Ok so a few thoughts having taken a bit more time to digest this:
@eteq - you said 'could happen at coordination meetings and dev telecons' - I guess we should think about whether to treat the dev telecons as mini coordination meetings in the sense they could also cover strategic stuff and non-development things, or keep the dev telecons be about dev and have separate calls for strategic planning? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Following the discussion at the coordination meeting I think this is a good thing to have, but this committee has a very important remit so I think the wording of this charter is important to get right.
So here's a bunch of word-smithing.
"responsibilities": { | ||
"description": "Do long-term planning for the Astropy Project as a whole, including:", | ||
"details": [ | ||
"Shape and provide a vision for next major steps in the Project, in consultation with the whole Astropy community.", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Isn't this just the roadmap?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I missed the roadmap discussion, but it does sound like the roadmap in its current form. But IMO some of the vaguer elements of the roadmap as they currently stand should be removed from the roadmap and added to the charge of this group, and the roadmap should be a set of actionable items with timelines associated.
A few highlights from the coordination meeting discussion (NOT COMPLETE - these are highlights and distillation from my perspective):
|
Co-authored-by: Adrian Price-Whelan <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Stuart Mumford <[email protected]>
Alright, this has all been cleaned up, reflecting various feedback both here and the coordination meeting, and should be ready to merge. |
This came out of some discussions the CoCo has been having the last few months on whose role it is to do big picture planning. We eventually settled on the reality of the current situation: that it has historically been something the CoCo does, but it is not necessary that this be so, and we should make it an explicit role so others can participate if they want.
As a starting point I named the people as just "the CoCo members" since that's the current reality, but that could change if others want to lean in on this topic.