Remove and refactor visualization references in APE 13 #106
Conversation
This comment was marked as resolved.
This comment was marked as resolved.
|
Thank you for the reminder. I'm on vacation, but I will hopefully finish this next week. |
|
@pllim, this is ready for review now. |
|
Thanks! I posted on Astropy Slack |
|
looks good to me. thanks! |
|
Looks good to me too. |
|
Looks good to me. |
Co-authored-by: Ricky O'Steen <[email protected]>
|
This document mentions the "Spectroscopic Coordinating Committee", I think that as of now, this is identical to the spectroscopy group that meets once a month and uses the |
Good catch. I'll put this on the CoCo agenda. |
|
Any progress on the "committee" stuff? What is holding this up now and how can we push it forward? Thanks! CoCo meeting notes has a note that says "Send an email - Erik – Did Erik send that email?" but I don't remember what this email is supposed to be about. Do you remember, @eteq ? |
|
I read that as the email of notification for the 2 week comment period, which has not been sent yet as far as I can see. For the committee it is not clear to me what actionable items this involves for CoCo. The spectroscopy group and channel seems to reflect the status quo described as
so maybe that comment could include a mention of |
|
The content of APE should be general enough that we don't have to come back and modify it again every time spectroscopy people decide to change how they communicate to each other (Slack channel, working groups, committee, etc). Since a real committee (with charter and stuff) never really formed, should we make that text more generic? |
|
To push things forward, I have started a two-week comment period (2024-08-23 till 2024-09-06): https://groups.google.com/g/astropy-dev/c/m7v7gxm9QlI/m/xJ6vZkBQBAAJ |
|
It's not my impression that they have continuously been changing structures, rather the APE as it was passed lays out a plan for a future (more formalised) structure. If everything works better, or already good enough, with the current organisation, it might indeed be a good idea to adopt the APE accordingly – I think no other sub-field within the Astropy ecosystem has a similar governing body, though probably also no other has been so much and consistently in the focus of roadmap etc. |
| @@ -498,3 +478,7 @@ Decision rationale | |||
| ------------------ | |||
| There were extensive discussions with multiple stakeholders undertaken in the process of putting together this APE and it appears as though concensus has been reached. This APE was accepted on Dec 18, 2017. | |||
|
|
|||
| Previous versions of this APE | |||
| ----------------------------- | |||
|
|
|||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It might be good to briefly mention that the previous version included a vision for specvis and describe the rationale for removing it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Fair point, I'll try to get something added today.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actually, I'm going to give a bit of push-back first. This section is formatted identically to all other APEs that have a previous version. In other words, no other APE provides any discussion of the contents of the previous version. Presumably, the previous version is still readable in its entirety.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think any other revision did more than clarify. Though arguably that is the case here too. Anyway, it is no big deal, I think right now this is just ensuring the APE reflects reality, not a wish from the past, and that is fine! Happy to have this in as is too.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanx. I'll leave this open in case others want to comment.
|
I'm happy with this. I just want to note that most of the discussion in this thread is about removing specviz, but the added focus on IO isn't mentioned prominently. I think that's just as important as the removal of specviz (and is a very good thing!) (new text is "supporting IO on data files used in the community") |
|
@keflavich, I like your idea. Could you suggest a place to insert that text? |
|
That text is already in the PR, I just meant to highlight it in the Issue here, since I hadn't seen it mentioned before |
|
A quick summary of some of the history here: The original authors of this APE were the "spectroscopic coordinating committee" for a while. We met for some time, and I think there was even an entry (or at least a PR to add it) on https://www.astropy.org/team.html for the group. But with time the group sort of dissolved for various reasons - a mix of "peoples' jobs changed" and "it was hard to drum up community interest, which was very demotivating". And that is what prompted the more recent push to try to coordinate with different relevant interest groups. @keflavich might or might not have a bit more to add on that? (None of that needs to be in this APE, I'm just providing it for context because several people in the spectroscopic meeting last week didn't know this part.) To me I'd say it's an equally valid choice to either declare the group that meets regularly the "new" spectroscopic coordinating committee, or just remove mention of it because the idea didn't really pan out the way we'd hoped. (In which case the newer group should still keep doing what it's doing, it just doesn't need to be the body referenced in this APE). I personally am fine with letting the new committee decide (we talked about it in the meeting last week, and my sense was "ambivalence", although @weaverba137 or @kbwestfall might feel differently?) |
|
@eteq, thank you for the write-up. I agree that last week we neither endorsed nor rejected the idea of becoming "the committee" as referenced in the APE. However I am not ambivalent about changing the language in this PR to reflect the present situation. Maybe that means calling it an ad hoc committee or a similar tweak. I would welcome suggestions. |
|
On the coordinating committee, I read through the doc to summarize what it articulates as the core responsibilities of the "Spectroscopic Coordinating Committee." (SCC) Here's my summary:
Does this agree with what others take from the doc? I would argue that the current SpectroscopyDev group doesn't really do either of these things. That's not to say that we couldn't, but it's a different scope compared to our current mode of largely just checking in with one another to discuss progress --- or lack thereof :) --- and next steps. I could see someone arguing we do 2, but "oversee" feels like too strong of a word to me. If the doc can reflect both the current situation and something to work toward, I suggest we leave most of the language as is. I would propose that the SpectroscopyDev group that currently meets monthly can assume the role, with some minor changes.
|
|
Thank you @kbwestfall, I've corrected the typos you found. |
|
@pllim, the two week period has passed. |
|
Thanks for the ping, @weaverba137 ! This is on CoCo agenda. Thanks for your continued patience. |
|
At the Spectroscopy tag up today, we agreed that we are willing to wait for guidance from the CoCo--and possibly a separate PR redefining "Spectroscopic Coordinating Committee"--rather than immediately assuming that role. Meanwhile, informally, the spectroscopy tag up group could discuss strategic planning on an as-needed basis. |
|
Alright, the CoCo agrees with the above, so I am merging this. Thanks @weaverba137 for carrying this over the finish line! |
|
Note I can't update the zenodo entry at merge-time as usual, due to access rights issues in Zenodo. Once we sort that out will leave a message here. |
This PR closes #83. Previously, APE 13 referred to
specvizwhich is now part of a separate project. Suggestions for separate spectrum visualization projects to mention as examples (but not part of APE 13) are welcome.