Link for this hackmd document!
If you want to join our next community meeting, keep track of this channel in our community discussion room! Login with GitHub and Join us in 3 weeks (i'll post details prior)
Thursday 11 July 2019 6-7pm in Room 204
leah: @leahawasser OR github
chris: @choldgraf OR github
jenny: github
You can also ping us in the community forum!!
Please add your name and contact info to the google sheet below:
Leah WasserColleagues - i've removed the spreadsheet link for privacy reasons from this document!!
pyopensci dev guide
(SciPy scheduled happy hour 7-11pm at Easy Tiger, 709 E 6th St.)
Leah, Chris and Jenny provided a general overview to kick things off:
Leah's notes: licensing came up a lot during the discussion.
we tried to take notes during the session but it was challenging to take notes AND actively participate and lead things. Note to all who are reading this: If you care to add to the points below, please do so!!
Core issues below (leah's notes after the fact and in summary - friends, what am i missing??)
Another set of comments / discussion was around the robustness of the code review itself. some packages have tests and look robust but the code is "messy" and not necessarily efficient. What level of review do we want to have?
Should people dig into code efficiency and software best practices (from a dev standpoint)? Most scientists are not dev's and don't have that level of coding skill? Could education play a role here? or how do we handle the review?
Maybe we could think a bit more about pyOpenSci in terms of discoverability. Maybe we could think about good, better and best coding practices but not set code quality expectations too high given we know scientists cant (and don't want to be) developers in the same way dev's aren't (always but could be!) scientists . Scientists need to do their science!
The question of other ecosystems of packages that are domain specific (astropy as an example) came up. How do we align review processes to allow for pyopensci to support those efforts if they are interested in being involved?
Leah's note: It would be fantastic if we could think about partnerships with groups like this that would facilitate sharing reviewers and review processes in the same way we are collaborating with JOSS.
note that someone looked at our website and thought we were like conda-forge. i (Leah) think we need to carefully consider the messaging on the website. :)
These notes were taken by jenny and chris et al during the meeting.
It was really hard to take notes and pay attention to those in the room :)
Leah Wasserwe prob don't want a new channel as this would be messy but another idea was poised about just having metadata associated with pyopensci affiliation. i think this is where a badge in the readme could be good
Please note that we are trying to define roles in pyOpenSci to allow people to get involved. Right now the roles below are based upon the ropensci infrastructure. we've discussed them several times in our community meetings. however we did not discuss roles in detail during our BoF.
Starting with the rOpenSci structure but we may want to adjust accordingly. And of course the time commitment can really be flexible but just trying to give folks a sense of time that might be associated with each role.
Ropensci has an outreach person. I wonder if we could start with anyone who had
just a bit of time to help us start to build an online presence. Potential for a fall intern…
(Neil: we could also apply to https://www.outreachy.org/)
A group of people who are willing to fill the editor role for a single package for a shorter duration of time throughout the year. Associate editors will be pinged by the core editor group to assess their time availability and expertise relative to serving in an editor capacity for a particular capacity. Their time can be more limited than the time required of the editors in chief.
NOTES: JOSS model: Joss has a small number (4) of editors in chief. each week one is on call and responsible for everything. has a larger pool of associated editors. this might work better if there is a larger community who want to jump in here and there.
This role helps guide the direction we go in terms of funding the organization. Ideally this person has expertise working with various funding types and connections in the community. But this role could also be someone who is keen to help us write proposals – 1 pagers 3 pagers etc that go to organizations that may be willing to fund us.
Neil ??
Create a shared hackmd and post it on the discourse forum.