pyOpenSci Meeting Notes - 21 March 2019#
Leah Wasser - CU Boulder
Jenny Palomino - CU Boulder
Kylen Solvik - CU Boulder
Carson Farmer - External advisor, Textile.io
Luiz Irber - DIB Lab, UC Davis
Leonardo Uieda - University of Hawaii at Manoa
Filipe Fernandes - NOAA
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
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: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/packaging/packaging_guide.html
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?
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)
We should allow for some flexibility in the review process – people might be set in their ways
Link to current requirements: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/packaging/packaging_guide.html#overview
Checklist for the reviewer after the submission issue is opened: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/peer_review/reviewer_guide.html
Review Template: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/appendices/templates.html#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
Outreach efforts - https://docs.google.com/document/d/1OpAgnky2NxD0KghRhINVLmtvoaq4PCBikfHgH9HjgCI/edit
updates on who has reached out to whom… please update the google doc with your name and who you’ve contacted
Website (http://pyopensci.org) - how do people get involved with us?
Landing page: https://hackmd.io/JaJtuFKJSQm3lc9WVLTI7w?edit
Packages - we need a package or two to review!!
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:
Community meetings? do we want to have a monthly or bimonthly meeting??
continue bi-monthly at this time
will revisit as the group grows
BoF - scipy invite!!
Call is open now until May 31st: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScNO_scayKeQapQxZRNeFOqql35HY9nRc6gCpxEk8VkZBAkLQ/viewform
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: https://www.pyopensci.org/dev_guide/intro