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

Accept "An Environment for Sustainable Research Software in Germany and Beyond: Current State, Open Challenges, and Call for Action" as an official position of de-RSE e.V. #1

Conversation

@sdruskat
Copy link
Contributor

sdruskat commented Jan 23, 2020

A rendered version of this draft is available in the respective branch.

In order to add a review to this draft, you need to be logged in to GitHub.

Please make all comments and all change suggestions in the document found under the Files change (5) tab above! You will have to resolve the diff first before you can see the document text.

In your review, you can either leave a comment on one or more lines, or suggest a change in the text "directly" (see gif below).

review

Once you are finished with your review, please submit it (see gif below).

submit-review

Many thanks for reviewing this position draft!

@sdruskat sdruskat marked this pull request as ready for review Jan 23, 2020
Copy link
Collaborator

axel-loewe left a comment

Fixed affiliation of Rudolf Weeber

Copy link

HeidiSeibold left a comment

I reviewed up to line 352. I will do the remaining text at another time.

Hope this is helpful and constructive. Let me know if anything is unclear.

knarrff and others added 4 commits Jan 24, 2020
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Heidi Seibold <heidi@seibold.co>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Heidi Seibold <heidi@seibold.co>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: axel-loewe <52000348+axel-loewe@users.noreply.github.com>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Heidi Seibold <heidi@seibold.co>
Copy link

StephanJanosch left a comment

I found 31 places in the text which I commented on or suggested a change.

In general the university perspective with being a domain researcher going towards RSE seems to be more prominent, than the perspective of an computer scientist entering a domain in a non university.

Huge thanks for that position paper

Copy link

hegish left a comment

add aspect of user feedback/communication as criteria for SW quality

Copy link

MakisH left a comment

I read through the complete text, it looks great! Thank you all for the hard work! I really liked the story segments and I would be really interested in studying "M.Sc. RSE". I think it also gives a clear substance in the goals of the RSE movement, which felt a bit abstract until now.

From my point of view, I only found a problem with a reference ("Europe 2019"). Other than that, the link style in the references is inconsistent: some have a link as <https://www.example.com>, some have a link as [example.com](example.com). The second is particularly bad, as it ommits the protocol (and potentially subdomain, e.g. www.) in the target. I could make all consistent, if we decide which style to use.

sdruskat and others added 4 commits Feb 11, 2020
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Heidi Seibold <heidi@seibold.co>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Heidi Seibold <heidi@seibold.co>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Stephan Janosch <StephanJanosch@users.noreply.github.com>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Malte <mukil@users.noreply.github.com>
sdruskat and others added 2 commits Feb 17, 2020
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Jan Linxweiler <linxweiler@gmx.de>
axel-loewe and others added 2 commits Feb 26, 2020
Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
axel-loewe and others added 2 commits Feb 26, 2020
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md
axel-loewe and others added 8 commits Mar 5, 2020
Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md


addition accepted

Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Frank Löffler <frank.loeffler@uni-jena.de>
…ny-and-beyond/manuscript.md

Co-Authored-By: Stephan Druskat <sdruskat@users.noreply.github.com>
(i.e. in persistently identifiable form as software source code (Smith
et al. 2016), and potentially in an additional paper which describes the
software concept, design decisions and development rationale), actively
maintained, and (re-)usable (Merali 2010; Barnes 2010; Tse 2010).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@sdruskat

sdruskat Mar 17, 2020

Author Contributor

Added the following paragraph after this line to resolve https://github.com/DE-RSE/positions/pull/1/files#r370522502:

We also argue that truly sustainable research software must be published under a Free and Open
Source Software license, and follow an open development model, to (1) enable the validation of
research results that have been produced using software, (2) enable the reproducibility of software-
based research, (3) enable improvement and (re-) use of the software to support more and better
research, and reduce resources to be spent on software development, (4) reduce legal issues (see
section on legal issues below), (5) meet ethical obligations from public funding, and (6) open research
software to the general public, i.e., the stakeholder group with arguably the greatest interest in
furthering research knowledge and improving research for the benefit of all.

@bussec What do you think?

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@knarrff

knarrff Mar 18, 2020

Collaborator

We should make sure everyone is behind this, so we should point out this addition specifically in a final meeting.

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@bussec

bussec Mar 26, 2020

@sdruskat Fine with me! Maybe include an additional point that focuses more from the open development process, e.g., "(X) facilitate the growth of a community of developers and users around the project".

Also, I agree with @knarrff as the first line is rather explicit in its wording and not everyone shares this level of enthusiasm for Free Software ;-)

@sdruskat

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

sdruskat commented Mar 17, 2020

@Knarff If you can approve this, we could merge and tag as the "community-reviewed pre-preprint version". 🎉

Thanks everyone for partaking in this, and also for working out together that GitHub PR reviews may not be the best tooling for dealing with such large documents. We've made it still! 🙌

Copy link
Collaborator

knarrff left a comment

Let's get the changes in the now-Overleaf-version in - especially the change about the pictures, if accepted.

(i.e. in persistently identifiable form as software source code (Smith
et al. 2016), and potentially in an additional paper which describes the
software concept, design decisions and development rationale), actively
maintained, and (re-)usable (Merali 2010; Barnes 2010; Tse 2010).

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
@knarrff

knarrff Mar 18, 2020

Collaborator

We should make sure everyone is behind this, so we should point out this addition specifically in a final meeting.

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

You can’t perform that action at this time.