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

  3. Our Review process - Discussion Points

    • Mentorship option on the pre-submission - Kylen will add some language

    • 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

  1. 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

  2. We will submit earthpy for review

    • need reviewers here too

    • https://github.com/earthlab/earthpy

  3. Goals before BOF

    • GOAL 1: have 1-2 packages reviewed by Mid june??

    • GOAL 2: revisit the 2-pager

  4. 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