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#

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
Scipy BOF
- Title/Abstract draft
Our Review process - Discussion Points
- Mentorship option on the pre-submission - Kylen will add some language
  - New language in guidebook
  - Help request template
- 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

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
We will submit earthpy for review
- need reviewers here too
- https://github.com/earthlab/earthpy
Goals before BOF
- GOAL 1: have 1-2 packages reviewed by Mid june??
- GOAL 2: revisit the 2-pager
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