PyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 11 Jan 2019#

https://hackmd.io/KbpsxAGrQ8CyMgCuUnVxzw

Attendees#

  • Leah Wasser

  • Max Joseph

  • Jenny Palomino

  • Kylen Solvik

  • Chris Holdgraf

  • Paige Bailey

  • Luiz Irber

Agenda Items#

  • Tasks for Kylen (presubmission process, submission process, etc)

    • review of rOpenSci documentation and modify to Python community needs

      • rOpenSci has a very clear scope:

        • e.g. no data visualization, no machine learning (difficult to review), etc (more from Kylen here)

      • rOpenSci also provides guidelines for dependencies

    • start google doc to start outlining on submission and review process

      • still create issues in Github to track tasks and status and decisions that need to be made surrounding the content

    • Python Software Template repo of some sort

      • Repository template – Chris Suggested:

        • shablona: https://github.com/uwescience/shablona

        • ariel rokem: https://github.com/arokem

      • provide template and suggested guidelines for testing (e.g. use of pytest for testing earthpy)

        • Cookie cutter for Python: https://github.com/audreyr/cookiecutter

        • Other examples for R

          • Use this for R: https://github.com/r-lib/usethis

          • Good practice for R: https://github.com/MangoTheCat/goodpractice

    • Max suggested that it could be nice to have automated ways to check for the basics in a Python repo… i think things like docs and format, etc etc. We should consider this as a part of the review process. leah question: Does R do anything like this??

  • Karthik recommends to focus on areas of expertise:

    • CU Boulder: open geospatial, open education (teach people how to contribute to OS and also to the review process)

  • Reach out to JOSS (and existing reviewers at rOpenSci) to learn how to teach people to review packages

    • Paige has contact at JOSS: Lorena Barba

      • Paige will reach out to Lorena for us! Lorena also works on JOSE

    • Arfon Smith (JOSS editor) is very approachable too

JOSE - journal of open source education – fast track with education technology…

  • Kylen asked about our decision making process.

    • Decisions we need to make and how we make them

    • more formal process to be outlined in future; for now, decisions during these meetings and commenting on documentation as it gets developed

  • Updates: domain names, twitter, etc

    • https://twitter.com/pyopensci

    • github.com/pyopensci

    • we also have pyopensci.org !!

  • Paper Idea

    • Survey of software:

      • how many of there?

        • Repeated functionality?

      • how many of them have robust testing?

      • group likes the idea but should be second priority to creating guidelines (from R)

      • Relevant reference for documentation: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10606-018-9333-1

      • Existing surveys that ask about Python use:

        • These are both about developers, not scientists

          • https://insights.stackoverflow.com/survey/2017

          • https://www.jetbrains.com/research/python-developers-survey-2017/

      • Ideas for questions

        • Leah

          • comfort contributing to OS software

          • ability to find packages

          • Is it easy for people to find the resources they need (e.g. finding packages, education resources for writing Python code)?

        • Max

          • recognize the need for pyOpenSci

          • What would you like to see the organization do?

  • New participants (Paige, Luiz): welcome!

  • Moore one pager: for next meeting

  • our first presubmission inquiry!! : need to determine scope but it appears not to be within the domain of expertise of the group

  • Jenny: send out a doodle poll to determine a new meeting date/time

Resources#

  • https://github.com/pyopensci (the previous one was pyopenscience)

  • https://ropensci.github.io/dev_guide/policies.html#package-categories

  • https://github.com/uwescience/shablona

    • https://github.com/uwescience/shablona/issues/77

    • “I know that I’ve previously made a distinction between shablona and cookie-cutter, but I really like this cookie-cutter (and particularly its documentation): https://nsls-ii.github.io/scientific-python-cookiecutter/. I’ve recently taught a workshop using this, and it made a lot of sense. I’m thinking of deprecating shablona, and pointing to that instead. Thoughts from anyone?”

  • https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10606-018-9333-1

    • The Types, Roles, and Practices of Documentation in Data Analytics Open Source Software Libraries