do we have any plans for SciPy 2021?
do we have any plans for SciPy 2021?
Hi @xmnlab We don’t yet but we should do it. I’m in the final stages of the proposal reviews - i’ll post another message but we got good feedback on the proposal - both reviewers think it should be funded
i see the deadline is on the 16th. maybe we can brainstorm here what we want to do. in the past we did a BOF at scipy which would be nice to organize this year again? A talk could be great as well. what are you thinking?
i can think more about this over the weekend - i suppose we could just talk about what we plan to do with pyopensci as a talk proposal?
I really liked the PyOpenSci BOF 2 years ago. Maybe we could organize something similar for this year.
@xmnlab yay so the BOF call is out and i’m going to fill it out now. i need a backup moderator in case i can’t attend (they are asking for that). Are you open to my listing you ? Or @NickleDave ? if I really couldn’t attend we can talk more a bout who would step in but i plan to attend!
@lwasser I’ll for sure be “there” and happy to be back-up moderator
I’m also happy to take a look at a BOF proposal if you would like any feedback.
I’m guessing you’re thinking about a discussion around future goals based on what was funded? Something like that might help provide structure.
Awesome dave!! May I just add your name and email to the form!! That will be great!! Thank you.
that sounds great! I still need to buy the tickets for the event, but I want to attend that for sure.
let me know if I can help in any way
Yes you can definitely add me
i’ve copied the text up to 2021 but know we have lots to edit. i’m thinking that it may be nice to talk a bit about goals and standards in the bof? we could use mentimeter to get feedback from everyone. but i haven’t had time to think deeply about desired outcomes yet and am open to suggestions. we will likely start pyopensci back up in August is my thought. i talked with SLOAN about this and they are ok with it so July or august i think is reasonable for me to be back to normal focus and productivity.
@lwasser that sounds great.
just a question, have you already submitted that? if not, do you want to have a meeting to work on this text together? or do you prefer to do it asynchronously ? should we comment directly in that google docs?
it’s not submitted yet @xmnlab i may be able to meet tomorrow. today can we please work asynchronously. please edit away! I got my second vaccine shot last night and i had a really bad reaction to the first one so i’m being cautious. i may take tomorrow off as it hit me thursday (tomorrow) last time. if i’m up for working i may work a half day tomorrow.
Ok! here is where i am with the text. feel free to comment here or edit in the document. i can submit this either later today or tomorrow morning just to get it in! I have to register as well, Ivan! my thought it that the biggest hurdle will be standards development so we can try to gather a bunch of information regarding various elements of standards enforcement at t he meeting. if we use mentimeter it will help us gather more information from more people vs the last time when certain people dominated the discussion. that is always the case in open discussions. i just think mentimeter will equalize voices heard! i did this at AGU and it was really helpful i think.the AGU session was much bigger than the scipy one.
pyOpenSci is an open community, modeled after rOpenSci. pyOpenSci will build a model for and community around improving OSS through peer review and standards while also building capacity to contribute to OSS. Our previous BOF held in 2019 at scipy focused on getting community input into what pyOpenSci should look like. Since then we have refined our review process and created a development guide for Python packages. We now have funding through the SLOAN foundation to further build a proof of concept for how pyOpenSci can facilitate community standards for scientific Python software and how pyOpenSci can support diversity within the Python OSS scientific community. In this open discussion, we will 1) provide updates regarding the current status of pyOpenSci; 2) request feedback from attendees that will help guide the direction of how pyOpenSci develops and enforces standards through its peer review process. Come to this BoF and help us shape pyOpenSci so that it can better support your work and that of the scientific Python community. www.pyopensci.org
that looks great! maybe I would change “development guide for Python packages” to “development guide for Scientific Python packages” … or something similar. because maybe web python package could have a different scope/approach
good point @xmnlab – I made a suggestion along those lines
overall looks good to me @lwasser – feel free to make use of my comments / suggested edits however
Assuming SciPy accepts the BoF … maybe we can start a new topic on here about potential discussion points and ask past/present/future contributors to comment on it? We could tag them on e.g. issues. That is, go back to a completed review and just say “heads up, we’re having a BoF and would love your feedback”. It would be great if we could let them know that the BoF will be happening, might help connect them with the SciPy conference too
sure … i’m wondering if the three of us should meet first. because the actual award we have is not just about peer review and we have a lot to do to support peer review. Here are a few in our list of things to work on over the next two years
in my mind the BOF was going to be about how we make decisions on standards because setting up that structure will help us make decisions. BUT it could also be around standards for packaging pain points as well. would it help if i generally develop that workflow / timeline in our organization to facilitate this discussion?
i’ll get that feedback resolved now and the BOF in!
Ok the SciPy 2021 BoF for pyopensci is submitted!!