Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

docs: update PSF scicookie report #12

Merged
merged 8 commits into from
Jul 3, 2024
Merged
Changes from 6 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
28 changes: 19 additions & 9 deletions scicookie/psf-grant-report-2024-01.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -128,8 +128,9 @@ Below are the responses to the event report submitted to PSF.
In general, Anavelyz and Yurely were in charge of resolving the issues. Ever
Vino was in charge of coordinating the timing and checking any blockages
during the execution of the project, he also helped the participants with some
of their doubts. Ivan Ogasawara was the one responsible for reviewing and
approving the issues, as well as the suggestions and the path of wisdom.
of their doubts. Ivan was responsible for improving the SciCookie structure,
which helped a lot to solve the issues, he was also in charge of reviewing and
approving the issues.

- Participant Feedback _Did the people that attend have anything to say_ Thanks
to PSF for the grant we received, it has allowed us to acquire new knowledge
Expand All @@ -139,13 +140,22 @@ Below are the responses to the event report submitted to PSF.
- Retrospective _Discuss what worked out well and what you would change for the
next time if there is anything planned._

We are pleased to report an 80% success rate in implementing the grant. This
opportunity has been invaluable in addressing identified areas for improvement
within SciCookie, resulting in substantial progress.

However, we encountered a challenge with the absence of a peer review process
from PyOpenSci for tools like SciCookie. We are actively collaborating with
them to explore establishing a review standard in the near future.
We are happy and grateful to have met most of the milestones presented in the
grant proposal. Regarding the milestone referred to "Apply to PyOpenSci" we
have found some details that we did not take into consideration, one of them
was that SciCookie is considered a tool and not a library (package) and we do
not fit into its package scope either, despite this we make sure to comply
with the quality requirements (tests, CI configuration, documentation), we
have also initiated communications with
[Leah Wasser](https://github.com/lwasser), CEO of pyOpenSci, who has directly
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

it would be better to change from CEO to Executive Director .. my impression is that CEO is used more for companies

EverVino marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
reviewed the use of SciCookie for pyOpenSci's needs as a project template to
recommend to its community . Based on her reviews and suggestions, SciCookie
has been improved to meet her main expectations. Leah has also started
creating a profile (default configuration set) specific to pyOpenSci at
[SciCookie](https://github.com/osl-incubator/scicookie/pull/273). Due to her
priorities and schedule, this work is still in progress. We have learned that
it is necessary to pay special attention to milestones and do a double check
when there are milestones that involve third parties.

- General Feedback _Anything else you want to say that didn't fit in anywhere
else?_
Expand Down