-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 630
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
Formalising a TTW infrastructure working group #2690
Comments
I think Alex Morley, but I don't think he has the time to contribute any more. |
I won't have time for any day-to-day involvement, but as this project is really nice and have a wonderful community, I would be happy to stay involved for bigger picture, infra PR reviews, and occasional small fixes. |
I don't know them personally but to add to the list of GitHub usernames that I've seen involved in infra PRs: @martinagvilas and @timothy22000 |
This sounds interesting. I would be happy to be involved. The plan sounds good to me, maybe we would want to make some changes to the infrastructure earlier on in the timeline but I think that is the kind of thing we will learn when we start the discussions. |
Hi @JimMadge @da5nsy @bsipocz @sgibson91 - great! When would be the best time to have this first kick-off meeting? There is a collaboration cafe happening tomorrow, 19 October, but that might be too short notice. How about the next one on 2 November? I can open a room there for the second hour, if that works for people. This can give more time for folks to respond as well, if joining this WG is of interest (and people have capacity, time and interest). In the meantime, is there interest in having a maintenance-wg channel on slack as well, to get started with some asynchronous discussions? Or would you all prefer to have them here for now? |
I already have some longish meetings tomorrow so would prefer to avoid that if possible. A slack channel is a good idea 👍. In the interest of openness, perhaps we should try to make sure we use GitHub Discussions when we are talking about things that would be of interest to people outside of the group, or when we would want to invite comments/feedback. |
I'm traveling until the 4th of Nov and won't have any time, so would actually prefer a little later kick off |
@bsipocz @JimMadge @da5nsy @sgibson91 (adding in @arronlacey here from the Turing staff team, and @damianavila from 2i2c, who will be consulting on contributing upstream). Tagging @jcolomb, @sayantikabanik, @alexmorley in case this is of interest as well. Hi all - great! With this in mind, I'm following up with a couple of things:
Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about this process by reaching out on Slack or emailing me at asteele@turing.ac.uk. I want to emphasise that I know you all work on The Turing Way in your free time, and outside of other professional and personal responsibilities. We appreciate all the time you give to us, despite extremely busy schedules. We hope this is the start of being able to support your work more fully 🙏 |
Hiya! It looks like Friday, 2pm EST works well for many of you. I'll make an event invite ASAP, with a draft agenda (that you can feel free to edit!). 👍 |
Invite = Sent! I have sent out invites to @bsipocz, @da5nsy, @sgibson91, and @JimMadge for Friday, 11 November at 2pm UTC (in your timezone). If you are interested in joining this kick-off: please comment here, send me a message on Slack, or email me at asteele@turing.ac.uk! You can find the pending agenda here, feel free to join us!: https://hackmd.io/@turingway/ttw-infra-kick-off For all of you tagged here, we aim to leave room for asynchronous communication, and for folks to join as they can, and in which ways they can. This is all a big experiment, and will likely take some iteration... thanks so much for being here. |
So concludes the first kick-off meeting of the infrastructure working group! 👍 |
Hi folks, following up on the third core team meeting, it would be great to schedule a first meeting of 2023 in order to @sgibson91 @da5nsy @bsipocz @JimMadge @arronlacey (@gedankenstuecke - I think you indicated interest as well?) I would love to formally introduce @AlexandraAAJ to the team (though I know she met a few or all of you at the organisational core team meeting). Following up on the meeting last week, we can follow up on how we can support you: https://www.when2meet.com/?19168871-2isRm |
Dear all, following Anne's message, I will send a calendar invite today to get together tomorrow at 4 pm. Hopefully, most of you still can make it (?). Looking forward to it. |
Thanks everyone for meeting #2! 😊 |
Sharing discussion here from Slack by @malvikasharan @da5nsy @jcolomb, @sgibson91 about github permissions, notes to add to ongoing governance & decision-making discussions. Added her for posterity.
|
Notes from infrastructure meeting on 14/09 Attendees: Sarah (@sgibson91), Danny @da5nsy), Anne (@aleesteele) Notes
Next steps
|
I think this is slightly misrepresented. I think "Should we do X" is a question for the core team, and "How to implement X and what do we need" is a question for the infra group (Acknowledging that there's some information coming that'll give further clarification on what decision making powers a working group may have. So there'll be some "Should we" q's the infra team can decide on themselves.) |
... lead by someone who has a good knowledge of the kinds of resources a working group might need and the infra group are drafted in for implementation/automation of the template repo |
Moving comment from last year here from #3102:
|
Summary
The aim of creating a 'maintainers working group' within The Turing Way community is to formalise the work of infrastructure maintenance within The Turing Way project.
This follows a broader push within the project to formalise roles and ways of working within the project, in line with current governance efforts. This 'infrastructure working group' operates a little differently from the others however, because the bulk of infrastructure maintenance happens through and with volunteers in the project. This means that our relationship to maintainer's volunteer labor is (and should be!) different, with structures and support explicit enough so that people can get involved as they can, while ensuring the project's continuation.
(See #2646 for more about this push to develop working groups within The Turing Way more broadly. #2035 and #2036 have more information about the governance process.)
Why should this formalisation happen?
The Turing Way relies on many open source frameworks and ways of working in order to operate, with the most obvious ties being our use of JupyterBook and Github. As a collaborative documentation project that uses open source tools to both render the guides and an open platform for collaborating to make them (content-aside), we aim to integrate support for maintainers and maintenance into the core values of the project, as we know issues of sustainability extend into the wider world of open source.
The role of maintainers in open source software projects has been extensively documented across the wider open source ecosystem, particularly focused on their importance in sustaining digital infrastructures (but alongside this: their lack of recognition or support) within teams, companies, and other related groups.
Here are a few resources and readings related to infrastructure:
[Pending] aims of the infrastructure maintainers working group
The following aims have been developed with @sgibson91, one of the founding members of The Turing Way team, and a core infrastructure maintainer. Additional conversations have also been had with @da5nsy (with respect to ongoing 'digital caretaking' and infra management so far) and @sayantikabanik (regarding onboarding for open source projects more broadly) that have influenced the pending development of this working group.
The goals of the working group are to work on infrastructure-related tasks on both a day-to-day and longer term basis, operationalising and formalising the process that has already emerged informally with people.
Proposed Timeline
Phase 0: Kick-off meeting
Phase 1: Documentation of Existing Infrastructure
Phase 2: Testing and Developing System
Phase 3: Expanding system & maintainers group
Feedback requested
Who can help?
In no particular order, I'm just tagging folks here who I have observed to be a part of TTW infrastructure efforts so far (and/or have indicated interest in getting involved). Tagging is by no means an obligation to join! If you'd like to get involved, please add yourself to the thread below. 🙏
It would also be great to tag some folks with historical/legacy knowledge of the TTW infrastructure as well – maybe a question for @malvikasharan and @sgibson91, and others? @alexmorley?
Updates
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: