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

Update affiliated package precedures to state how potential reviewer list is updated #340

Closed
pllim opened this issue May 4, 2023 · 4 comments · Fixed by astropy/astropy-APEs#87
Assignees

Comments

@pllim
Copy link
Member

pllim commented May 4, 2023

From Astropy Coordination Meeting 2023: Reviewer list (which is private by design) is hard to update unless you are already deep in the astronomy field and know who is who. @hamogu has updated developer survey to add a question for people to sign up (or remove themselves) as reviewers, to ease burden off Editors.

Unsolved: What about people who can review but do not get our dev survey? @hamogu offered to help Editors directly to do this in private but is this sufficient?

@pllim
Copy link
Member Author

pllim commented May 4, 2023

Additional idea: What if we let the people getting the survey to volunteer other people they know who are not necessarily in Astropy?

@hamogu
Copy link
Member

hamogu commented May 4, 2023

Current rules say “The pool of available reviewers will be anyone who has an official role on the Astropy team or anyone who has participated in the Astropy project enough to be familiar with the project guidelines and requirements” (https://github.com/astropy/astropy-project/blob/main/affiliated/affiliated_package_review_process.md) - which is in general the people who get the roles survey or got it in the past.

That does not mean that we can't change that - but it's worked in past so we need a reasons to change it.

@pllim
Copy link
Member Author

pllim commented May 4, 2023

Personal opinion as ex-editor: I am hesitant to pull people not familiar with the Project already, because I feel like you at least need to be involved, even a little, to be an effective reviewer. So I agree with @hamogu .

@pllim
Copy link
Member Author

pllim commented Jun 6, 2023

Might be superseded by #334 but not sure yet.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants