or
or
By clicking below, you agree to our terms of service.
New to HackMD? Sign up
Syntax | Example | Reference | |
---|---|---|---|
# Header | Header | 基本排版 | |
- Unordered List |
|
||
1. Ordered List |
|
||
- [ ] Todo List |
|
||
> Blockquote | Blockquote |
||
**Bold font** | Bold font | ||
*Italics font* | Italics font | ||
~~Strikethrough~~ | |||
19^th^ | 19th | ||
H~2~O | H2O | ||
++Inserted text++ | Inserted text | ||
==Marked text== | Marked text | ||
[link text](https:// "title") | Link | ||
 | Image | ||
`Code` | Code |
在筆記中貼入程式碼 | |
```javascript var i = 0; ``` |
|
||
:smile: | ![]() |
Emoji list | |
{%youtube youtube_id %} | Externals | ||
$L^aT_eX$ | LaTeX | ||
:::info This is a alert area. ::: |
This is a alert area. |
On a scale of 0-10, how likely is it that you would recommend HackMD to your friends, family or business associates?
Please give us some advice and help us improve HackMD.
Do you want to remove this version name and description?
Syncing
xxxxxxxxxx
pyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 20 June 2019
Hackmd document link
Looks like you need to signin to hackmd to contribute to this document! but you can sign in using your github user. welcome guest!!
Attendees
Agenda
Thursday 11 July 2019 6-7pm in Room 204
We could plan to get a drink or food after informally to discuss pyOpenSci more as well. (SciPy scheduled happy hour 7-11pm)
What should the structure be?
Suggested Outline:
Create a shared hackmd and post it on the discourse forum.
If you will be at SciPy, please add your name below:
How do we handle disagreements between reviewers and submitters? Can we setup criteria around things like usability that can help resolve disputes?
https://ioos.github.io/erddapy/
Maybe we find a good example of a well document package
Examples of Good Documentation
We could add this to the criteria
Standard criteria
We should be careful about being too specific for instance
contains a README with instructions for installing the development version.
Clearly establish the goal of the review. The goal should be not only passing tests, but to improve the package as a whole in terms of usability. This would ensure we are not bound to the check items in the template.
Right now the checks are only "technical checks". But there is not discussion of usability in the review template.
Actional feedback in the review. right now it's a HUGE issue. (so much text). But we didn't open issues in this particular example.
Resolution:
If we are encouraging reviewers to open issues - could they also open PR's ? That would be a nice way to help the author along in their improvements to the package.
Make this an opt out?? opt out of having issues and pr's in your repo. we could have it checked by default an they can open out by unchecking it.
Earthpy - need reviewers?
If the list below works, Luiz can update the issue and we can start again! If that is happening i may update the version as we just bumped it!!
Nbless – Status: need a second reviewer if leo does earthpy
Open Issues
How should we handle this todo list? maybe a space in our discourse forum that gets referenced in our checkins?? This gets into task management which i think we can do in github but i have always used asana :)
Open Issues
Plan to discuss gitter for pyOpenSci in future meeting
Roles reminder (we can skip this if there's not time today)
Role Definition Revisited (please feel free to edit this or leave comments!!)
Starting with the rOpenSci structure but we may want to adjust accordingly. And ofcourse the time commitment can really be flexible but just trying to give folks a sense of time that might be associated with each role.
Leadership (3-5):
Community, Social Media, Outreach, Website (?future or someone doing part):
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/)
Editors in Chief (2-3?):
Pool of Associate Editors (8+)
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.
Advisory (4*):
Responsibilities:
Funding & Business Development
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.