Repository navigation
Coordination meeting 2023 #255
Description
At the Coordination meeting 2022 we decided:
- To have the 2023 coordination meeting in spring (May?)
- A large majority favors a hybrid meeting 12 votes vs 6 votes for fully in-person
- location: Cambridge, MA, USA (MIT or CFA)
Potential SOC:
- (if in UK, which it's not this year): Stuart Mumford (maybe) @Cadair
- Pey Lian (yes) @pllim
- Tom Aldcroft (yes, LOC) @taldcroft
- Leo Singer (maybe, in particular if in Hawaii, which it's not this year) @lpsinger
- Moritz Günther (yes, if at MIT/CfA) @hamogu
- Wilfred Gee @wtgee (?)
- Matt Craig (willing, not chair) @mwcraig
Topics to revisit (add further suggestions as comments to this issue):
Reacted by P. L. Lim
Activity
pllim commentedon May 5, 2022
Might also be good time to do v6.0 planning if not too late, @astropy/astropy-project-release-team ?
pllim commentedon May 5, 2022
Maybe want to add roadmap again to this meeting too, @ceb8 ?
ceb8 commentedon May 5, 2022
Yes, definitely Roadmap should go on the agenda. With a pre-meeting solicitation of items from the community.
EDIT: See #330
hamogu commentedon May 12, 2022
Notes on physical location and hybrid mode: At the 2022 coordination meeting we discussed different options for the location. Many contributors are located in North-East America, but to be inclusive to e.g. European contributors, it's not good to default to "US East Coast". After discussion and in light of the ongoing COVID thread and related restrictive travel policies for some institutions, the US North-East is one of the places with the best probability to actually get enough in-person participation to make a hybrid meeting (the preferred option) possible this time. Maybe the 2024 meeting can be in a different place again?
At the same time, the organizing committee should take steps to make a hybrid meeting work for others. Ideas are:
[-]Coodination meeting 2023[/-][+]Coordination meeting 2023[/+]pllim commentedon Jun 9, 2022
From dev telecon today, we want to add this to potential topics to discuss during the meeting. cc @nstarman and @WilliamJamieson
pllim commentedon Jul 15, 2022
From Scipy 2022:
pllim commentedon Jul 16, 2022
There was a hybrid BOF at Scipy 2022. I'll leave a few notes here in case they are useful for our planning. There were some that I don't think apply to our meeting:
pllim commentedon Jul 16, 2022
Sprint idea from Scipy 2022:
eteq commentedon Oct 17, 2022
At the NF Summit this year there was a session about "contributor experience lead" - the scope of this roles in other projects as somewhat variable, but it's something in a continuum between our concept of Community Engagement Coordinator and PR first-responders. Do we want to have a similar role in Astropy? And if so, how does it overlap with our existing roles?
pllim commentedon Oct 26, 2022
Also this:
pllim commentedon Nov 1, 2022
Asked by @hamogu -- Do we want to select a priority theme for the next release(s)? (In the past we uses, e.g., "performance" as a theme.) Or not worth it?
Suggestions:
@eteq -- Some Cycle 3 funded projects for "cloud-friendly", but maybe for next release -- v6.1?
We can discuss unless CoCo decided to send another survey out and do it that way instead. cc @adrn
pllim commentedon Nov 16, 2022
Possible future directions of the projects; high level goals we should work towards to as an organization to stay hip.
37 remaining items
wtgee commentedon Mar 2, 2023
It would be good to have a conversation about how we can support the rest of the planet that is not in the USA or Europe, in particular large markets like India, China, Japan, etc.
pllim commentedon Mar 2, 2023
Re: #255 (comment)
@wtgee , do you have something more concrete in mind? This came up a long, long time ago, but no one knew how to get around geopolitical limitations.
wtgee commentedon Mar 3, 2023
Honestly I'm not too sure what concrete actions there could be, I just get the feeling that there are probably a lot of people (especially students) that we could support/utilize better. I guess I'm imagining a discussion but admittedly don't have a ton to offer in that conversation.
We talked about having the coordination meeting in Hawaii as a way to potentially get more people from the Asian-Pacific involved so maybe we could just consider that for 2024.
Maybe a simple thing to do would be to make some kind of poll that directly asks the question and try to get people in those countries to fill it out. 🤷
pllim commentedon Mar 3, 2023
Re: #255 (comment)
Thanks for the ideas, @wtgee . Let me bring them back to the next CoCo tag-up and discuss there as well, since SOC and CoCo do overlap and I think CoCo meets first. 😸
dhomeier commentedon Mar 3, 2023
I think we did discuss scheduling the time slots for the last (virtual-only) coordination meeting such as to optimise them for as many time zones as possible, but at the time had virtually no feedback from outside the main European and American zones. But we should certainly update this regularly, to make it clear that other segments of the globe will be considered as well. I believe the last remote ADASS had some slots accommodating East Asian/Australian participants, and I guess there will be more on location in South America, Africa or Asia every 3-5 years.
dhomeier commentedon Mar 3, 2023
Other note to self, but also to others interested: more active participation in https://www.euroscipy.org/2023/program.html . That does not really get out of the North-Atlantic bubble, but I still think it would be nice to have better presence there.
weaverba137 commentedon Mar 6, 2023
Potential topic: Independently of whether we continue to use package-template or switch to the Open Astronomy Guide, is there a way to automatically update boilerplate items like dependency versions (e.g.
python>3.8,tox>4,numpy<1.23), or at least a central documentation site that has "this is the set of packages and versions that are currently used to test Astropy"?pllim commentedon Mar 6, 2023
Re: #255 (comment)
@weaverba137 , there is currently no auto-update available. I don't think this warrants a coordination meeting slot unless you have some specific ideas you want to hack on?
weaverba137 commentedon Mar 7, 2023
I was thinking about it in terms of affiliated packages, and I'm pretty sure that is a topic. If you'd prefer, I could bring it up under that topic.
pllim commentedon Mar 7, 2023
Re: #255 (comment)
@weaverba137 , the entry about affiliated package I can find thus far is about "how to become affiliated" and not really about template. Dependency versions is so specific that it cannot be "global discussion" and might not even have enough traction to get a "break-out discussion" spot. You asked "is there a way" and I answered "not currently". What do you really wish to accomplish by bringing this to the coordination meeting? Are you able to rephrase this topic? Thanks!
weaverba137 commentedon Mar 7, 2023
How about this: Is there a way to know what upstream dependencies Astropy currently supports (equivalently: is being tested against), independently of tracking down the testing configuration files and reading those? If that did exist, one could conceive of packaging it in e.g. JSON or YAML format, then dropping those versions into templates of e.g.
setup.cfg,tox.ini,.readthedocs.yml,ci_workflows.yml, etc.And that's maybe an issue to open on
package-template, etc., rather than a meeting topic.pllim commentedon Mar 7, 2023
Re: #255 (comment)
@weaverba137 , I opened issue at OpenAstronomy/packaging-guide#35
pllim commentedon Apr 25, 2023
Any extra stuff, we can play by ear next week. Thanks, all!
https://github.com/astropy/astropy/wiki/MITMeeting2023