--- tags: pyopensci, python --- # pyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 4 April 2019 https://hackmd.io/ixwWjxq7S2msYEZcZ3gV-Q ## Attendees * Leah Wasser - CU Boulder * Jenny Palomino - CU Boulder * Kylen Solvik - CU Boulder * Luiz Irber - UC Davis * Neil Chue Hong - Software Sustainability Institute / University of Edinburgh * Max Joseph - CU Boulder * Joe Hamman - NCAR * Leonardo Uieda - UH Manoa * Chris Holdgraf - UC Berkeley ## Agenda 1. Check out our website!! pyopensci.org * Our organization: github.com/pyopensci * Dev guide: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/intro * Aims and scope + package categories: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/aims_scope.html 2. Scipy BOF * Title/Abstract [draft](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UlKxVaDalT9sJUa2dcOM7Ea1It6k5h5r66JSpu5rW3I/edit) 3. Our Review process - Discussion Points * Mentorship option on the pre-submission - Kylen will add some language * [New language in guidebook](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/packaging/presub_qs_help.html) * [Help request template](https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/blob/master/.github/ISSUE_TEMPLATE/help-request.md) * Mentorship option for reviewing packages -- pair experienced reviewers with new reviewers ... * Review:: let's consider a bot to get an automatic thank you (maybe include some additional resources to review, etc while they wait) * Example pre-review issue in JOSS: https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/1357 * github welcome bot -- https://github.com/apps/the-welcome-bot * Whedon the JOSS bot -- does anyone have experience setting up a bot?? -- maybe we can find someone from -- Arfon might be the one to ask about this... * Command line: https://github.com/openjournals/whedon * API (deployed to Heroku): https://github.com/openjournals/whedon-api * we might need to fork the repo to fit our review process. can we implement a "soft fork" to ensure we can keep tabs on the latest technical updates ... * Who would like to be (have time for) editors * Leah is happy to help with this now. * Luiz * Who would like to be (have time for) reviewers? * Rather than have everyone watch the repo, ping a few specific people or define a process to identify reviewers * Neil will review a package * Chris will review * Leo * Kylen * Can we get feedback from our reviewers on the process?? What is that mechanism? * feedback issue perhaps in a repo??? * or a link to the issue * does rOpenSci do surveys??? followup on that -- followup with Steph B about this ??
4. Go over the review steps * Review [overview/timeline](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/peer_review_proc.html#review-timeline) * What is the editor's role? Editor [template](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/appendices/templates.html#editors-template) and [checklist](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/editor_guide.html#editor-checklist) * How to review? Reviewer [template](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/appendices/templates.html#review-template) and [guide](https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/reviewer_guide.html)
JOSS potential issues * what packages they don't accept -- ie they don't accept API wrappers 4. Package reviewers wanted!! (We need 4 total + 2 editors to move the process along) * Package one: https://github.com/pyOpenSci/software-review/issues/1 * Will anyone volunteer to review - erddapy * Jenny & Chris will work together * Neil 5. We will submit earthpy for review * need reviewers here too * https://github.com/earthlab/earthpy 6. Goals before BOF * GOAL 1: have 1-2 packages reviewed by Mid june?? * GOAL 2: revisit the 2-pager 7. Spreading the word to more people? * Keep doing it! ## To Dos * look into the whedon bot * Someway to capture feedback on our process -- survey?? * Kylen / Chris will help with the bot setup-- whedon the bot