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