Comments from review of initial submission

[ctb]

review comments/requests: see

• Strengthen statement about "no objective system " for authorship Strengthen statement about "no objective system " for authorship #123
• further emphasize strikethrough formatting for errors in extant versions further emphasize strikethrough formatting for errors in extant versions #122
• maybe add a note about how manubot could be used for better lesson development maybe add a note about how manubot could be used for better lesson development #120
• "it is reviewed by a maintainer and a participant" "it is reviewed by a maintainer and a participant" #119
• "We use GitHub issues for organization" "We use GitHub issues for organization" #118
• "requesting modifications as depicted in 7." "requesting modifications as depicted in 7." #117
• do rendered versions of each PR get posted back to the PR? do rendered versions of each PR get posted back to the PR? #121
• footnote placement in rendered manuscript should be left-adjusted footnote placement in rendered manuscript should be left-adjusted #116
• introductory paragraph needs more citations. introductory paragraph needs more citations. #114
• "correctness and fairness" in abstract are unclear. "correctness and fairness" in abstract are unclear. #115

note these refer to the submitted version of this paper that I received in PDF form; will need to be double checked against latest version.

[tpoisot]

I'd need to read a bit more to comment - just to be clear, is that an invitation to give feedback? I would be happy to, but I'm on parental leave until March.

[ctb]

I put this in to give the editor and other reviewer a single point of entry.

[slochower]

@ctb Yep, got it, sorry for the confusion. I was a little slow on figuring out what was going on.

[ctb]

I also wasn’t clear ;). Battling bad WI-FI and a plane about to take off! I’ll fix this issue up in a bit.

[ctb]

description & issue title fixed. please leave me to update the checkboxes for second review!

[agitter]

Thanks for the comments and for reorganizing the issue @ctb. Would you like us to have you review the pull requests that we create to close these issues? That would ensure we're addressing the comments properly, but I also don't want to commit you to more frequent reviewing if that isn't your intention.

[ctb]

Would you like us to have you review the pull requests that we create to close these issues? That would ensure we're addressing the comments properly, but I also don't want to commit you to more frequent reviewing if that isn't your intention.

I'm traveling, so probably can't do much. But please ask for clarifications if needed!

[slochower]

@dhimmel @agitter Do you want to assign specific people to tackle specific issues or some other alternative strategy?

[dhimmel]

Do you want to assign specific people to tackle specific issues or some other alternative strategy?

How about first one to volunteer or open a PR addressing a piece of feedback gets it. Let's try to keep PRs small, review fast, and merges frequent. @agitter did you want to create response-to-reviewers.md or should I?

[agitter]

@agitter did you want to create response-to-reviewers.md or should I?

I'm on it now. Sooo many meetings this week.

[agitter]

My plan for this issue is to start making pull requests to address the individual comments and close the respective issues. Once they are all finished, we can discuss the batch of changes here and reopen issues that need more revisions.

[agitter]

@ctb thank you for all of your feedback on the Manubot manuscript and organizing it in issues. We're getting close to resubmitting. Is it okay with you if we acknowledge your public review (#126)?

We have also been checking the boxes above to help us track what still needs attention. We're happy to discuss individual comments with you any time.