pyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 21 March 2019#


  • Leah Wasser - CU Boulder

  • Jenny Palomino - CU Boulder

  • Kylen Solvik - CU Boulder

  • Carson Farmer - External advisor,

  • Luiz Irber - DIB Lab, UC Davis

  • Leonardo Uieda - University of Hawaii at Manoa

  • Filipe Fernandes - NOAA

Agenda Items#

  1. Conversation with JOSS - should know in the next few weeks if our review process is accepted

    • they are interested in partnering with us, similar to their partnership with rOpenSci

    • when someone submits a package to pyOpenSci, they can also submit it to JOSS to get a DOI from them

      • robust review process, as compared to Zenodo DOI

      • You can have both: a DOI for the package from Zenodo and a DOI from JOSS for the paper/publication

  2. Discussion of review process

    • When should a package be submitted?

      • should be fairly well-developed; if early in the package development, potential submitter should complete pre-review steps:

    • pyOpenSci should provide a reason for why go through the pyOpenSci process, rather than just JOSS?

      • When someone submits – maybe we have a curation … support process to help people with testing , docs, etc etc

      • If we make it easier for people to submit, to setup tests, and docs etc, we might get more submissions, does rOpenSci do mentorship with testing, docs, etc etc ? FOLLOWUP with Karthik and Carl – do they mentor submissions?

        • cookie-cutter:

      • Maybe look into how much hand-holding/support does rOpenSci provide for submitters?

        • maybe we help them with testing, docs, etc

        • pyOpenSci is dedicated to education around OS development, so this fits mission

        • Possibly have three categories for submission:

          • pre-submission with support (submittter requests guidance on specific tasks such as testing, docs; could also be labeled as such by the reviewer)

          • pre-submission

          • submission

      • We should allow for some flexibility in the review process – people might be set in their ways

        • Link to current requirements:

        • Checklist for the reviewer after the submission issue is opened:

        • Review Template:

  • What happens after a package is accepted?

    • packages goes to JOSS if it was requested and in scope for JOSS

      • technical review is done already

    • decision on where the repository will live

      • they can keep in their space if organization

      • or they can decide to port it over to pyOpenSci

    • accepted packages will be listed on pyOpenSci website and send out via social media annnouncements

    • One goal of pyOpenSci is provide a space/mechanism for faster discovery of packages

    • So one benefit of the review is that it is a community approved package and will now be easier for others to discover and use

  1. Outreach efforts -

    • updates on who has reached out to whom… please update the google doc with your name and who you’ve contacted

  2. Website ( - how do people get involved with us?

    • Landing page:

  3. Packages - we need a package or two to review!!

    • Scope:

    • Goal to review 1-2 packages before BoF

    • We need to find ~2 reviewers

    • Filipe has suggestions for package

      • wrapper for an API to obtain data


    • Maybe Max Joseph - streamstats?


    • Striplog is a package for well log data


    • Create a new issue in repo to kick off review process:


  4. Community meetings? do we want to have a monthly or bimonthly meeting??

    • continue bi-monthly at this time

    • will revisit as the group grows

  5. BoF - scipy invite!!

    • Call is open now until May 31st:

To Do:#

  • rOpenSci – has discourse forum to answer questions. it might be better to document things here! we could set this up.

  • Filipe will submit a package to the review process

  • Should we submit earthpy? or something else?


  • Dev Guide: