--- 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 ??