From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Wed Oct 23 14:30:48 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Wed, 23 Oct 2013 13:30:48 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New list policies
Message-ID: <CA+WonSS=XNBDmCk81_RDXxO05C-50smOojQu5mDM3H+XWncMpQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

I've mentioned this before but now we are opening up the scipy-organizers
list so that anyone can join in.  The hope is this way the community can
join a single list to get all the organizing details and things are
archived.

Since the conference frequently requires decisions that need special care,
we have also setup scipy-exec at scipy.org for the Executive committee of that
year's scipy organizing committee.  This list is intended to be private and
have the members purged every year for a new committee.  I hope we don't
need to use this list much.

-- Andy
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/scipy-organizers/attachments/20131023/85cc38b1/attachment.html>

From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Thu Oct 24 18:03:17 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Thu, 24 Oct 2013 17:03:17 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] SciPy2014 Kickoff Meeting
Message-ID: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

Kelsey and I would like to invite all this year's organizers to a
Skype kick off.  The point of this call is to just introduce everyone
and discuss major decision points for SciPy2014.

Please fill out the poll for when you can meet next week.  I've
selfishly only chosen times that correspond to my own schedule.

Submit times: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h
Results: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/results/w5bhpn
Edit: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/edit/w5bhpn

-- Andy


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Fri Oct 25 11:16:18 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:16:18 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Google Stories
Message-ID: <CA+WonSRqWE4iwOermXHs4QvhJcbVVGWuSk0CsL0Gzxh3VAVeuA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello folks,

We've been requested by the Google Open Source Programs Office to find
developers within Google who use software that is represented at the
SciPy Conference to contact Cat Allman.  If you know of folks that may
be able to do so can you send me their names (privately as not to call
folks out on a public list).

The backstory is that Google is putting more of its emphasis on the
10th anniversary of Google Summer of Code (GSOC) and potentially
dropping support for other events (such as ours).  With that said, I
think we should have some emphasize on the GSOC this year.  I'm
contacting Cat to discuss possibilities, but if you have any ideas let
me know.  GSOC has had a tremendous impact over the years on the SciPy
Community and I would like to capture that.

-- Andy


From sheila at codersquid.com  Fri Oct 25 12:04:19 2013
From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:04:19 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
Message-ID: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all!

I've newly joined the organizers list.

My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?

regards!

-- 
sheila at codersquid.com


From kjordahl at enthought.com  Fri Oct 25 12:07:58 2013
From: kjordahl at enthought.com (Kelsey Jordahl)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:07:58 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>

Sheila,

The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.

Cheers,
Kelsey



On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com>wrote:

> Hi all!
>
> I've newly joined the organizers list.
>
> My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
>
> regards!
>
> --
> sheila at codersquid.com
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>



-- 
Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
Scientific software developer
Enthought, Inc.
245 Park Avenue,
New York, NY 10167
kjordahl at enthought.com
1-973-996-8401
http://www.enthought.com


From katyhuff at gmail.com  Fri Oct 25 12:13:30 2013
From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 09:13:30 -0700
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFoDED0FfGEOEx97CrqY=c9s4m7WEjDfk2Spr2ObfhR9_ScObg@mail.gmail.com>

Indeed, as Kelsey said, we've zeroed in on a likely pair. Traditionally the
themes change from year to year so reproducibility will have to wait for
another year. That said, I know a lot of the stuff that falls under
reproducibility will have a home in the scientific computing education
theme.
I hope everyone is as excited as I am about that!

Katy


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com>wrote:

> Sheila,
>
> The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
> Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Kelsey
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi all!
> >
> > I've newly joined the organizers list.
> >
> > My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
> >
> > regards!
> >
> > --
> > sheila at codersquid.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
> Scientific software developer
> Enthought, Inc.
> 245 Park Avenue,
> New York, NY 10167
> kjordahl at enthought.com
> 1-973-996-8401
> http://www.enthought.com
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>



-- 
http://katyhuff.github.com


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Fri Oct 25 12:16:12 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:16:12 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSQZ=cAMwop65Zdw-cjAr1u-KwRPJtuP7MR_7PArLGqD=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Sheila,

This year we have three days so more room in the schedule.  My
suggestion would that the Program Committee consider it as a topic for
a domain symposium.

-- Andy

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com> wrote:
> Sheila,
>
> The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
> Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
>
> Cheers,
> Kelsey
>
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com>wrote:
>
>> Hi all!
>>
>> I've newly joined the organizers list.
>>
>> My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
>>
>> regards!
>>
>> --
>> sheila at codersquid.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
> Scientific software developer
> Enthought, Inc.
> 245 Park Avenue,
> New York, NY 10167
> kjordahl at enthought.com
> 1-973-996-8401
> http://www.enthought.com
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From katyhuff at gmail.com  Fri Oct 25 13:15:07 2013
From: katyhuff at gmail.com (Katy Huff)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:15:07 -0700
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSQZ=cAMwop65Zdw-cjAr1u-KwRPJtuP7MR_7PArLGqD=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSQZ=cAMwop65Zdw-cjAr1u-KwRPJtuP7MR_7PArLGqD=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAFoDED0zdPquJ_ghH=cT2yOWRHgtpH5hH=WQDsJQMPuq3HHUeA@mail.gmail.com>

An excellent suggestion!


On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hi Sheila,
>
> This year we have three days so more room in the schedule.  My
> suggestion would that the Program Committee consider it as a topic for
> a domain symposium.
>
> -- Andy
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com>
> wrote:
> > Sheila,
> >
> > The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
> > Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Kelsey
> >
> >
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com
> >wrote:
> >
> >> Hi all!
> >>
> >> I've newly joined the organizers list.
> >>
> >> My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
> >>
> >> regards!
> >>
> >> --
> >> sheila at codersquid.com
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
> > Scientific software developer
> > Enthought, Inc.
> > 245 Park Avenue,
> > New York, NY 10167
> > kjordahl at enthought.com
> > 1-973-996-8401
> > http://www.enthought.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>



-- 
http://katyhuff.github.com


From bmurphy at enthought.com  Fri Oct 25 13:25:46 2013
From: bmurphy at enthought.com (Brett Murphy)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 12:25:46 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CAFoDED0zdPquJ_ghH=cT2yOWRHgtpH5hH=WQDsJQMPuq3HHUeA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSQZ=cAMwop65Zdw-cjAr1u-KwRPJtuP7MR_7PArLGqD=Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFoDED0zdPquJ_ghH=cT2yOWRHgtpH5hH=WQDsJQMPuq3HHUeA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAM-S6MqfkMc83On1hg+pmnDLJ2n2CFHgVO-0yP0zYp4jn+eSzQ@mail.gmail.com>

Even the Economist has picked up on reproducibility as a big issue in
science:
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong

A mini-symposium seems like a good idea.

-- Brett



Brett Murphy
Enthought, Inc.
bmurphy at enthought.com
512-536-1057



On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Katy Huff <katyhuff at gmail.com> wrote:

> An excellent suggestion!
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hi Sheila,
> >
> > This year we have three days so more room in the schedule.  My
> > suggestion would that the Program Committee consider it as a topic for
> > a domain symposium.
> >
> > -- Andy
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com
> >
> > wrote:
> > > Sheila,
> > >
> > > The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
> > > Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Kelsey
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com
> > >wrote:
> > >
> > >> Hi all!
> > >>
> > >> I've newly joined the organizers list.
> > >>
> > >> My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
> > >>
> > >> regards!
> > >>
> > >> --
> > >> sheila at codersquid.com
> > >> _______________________________________________
> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
> > > Scientific software developer
> > > Enthought, Inc.
> > > 245 Park Avenue,
> > > New York, NY 10167
> > > kjordahl at enthought.com
> > > 1-973-996-8401
> > > http://www.enthought.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> >
>
>
>
> --
> http://katyhuff.github.com
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>


From kyle.mandli at gmail.com  Fri Oct 25 13:27:24 2013
From: kyle.mandli at gmail.com (Kyle Mandli)
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 10:27:24 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CAM-S6MqfkMc83On1hg+pmnDLJ2n2CFHgVO-0yP0zYp4jn+eSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAM-S6MqfkMc83On1hg+pmnDLJ2n2CFHgVO-0yP0zYp4jn+eSzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1382722043639.601eae12@Nodemailer>

Or perhaps (or in addition to) a BoF?

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 1:25 PM, Brett Murphy <bmurphy at enthought.com>
wrote:

> Even the Economist has picked up on reproducibility as a big issue in
> science:
> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21588069-scientific-research-has-changed-world-now-it-needs-change-itself-how-science-goes-wrong
> A mini-symposium seems like a good idea.
> -- Brett
> Brett Murphy
> Enthought, Inc.
> bmurphy at enthought.com
> 512-536-1057
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Katy Huff <katyhuff at gmail.com> wrote:
>> An excellent suggestion!
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:16 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com
>> >wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Sheila,
>> >
>> > This year we have three days so more room in the schedule.  My
>> > suggestion would that the Program Committee consider it as a topic for
>> > a domain symposium.
>> >
>> > -- Andy
>> >
>> > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com
>> >
>> > wrote:
>> > > Sheila,
>> > >
>> > > The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
>> > > Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
>> > >
>> > > Cheers,
>> > > Kelsey
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez <sheila at codersquid.com
>> > >wrote:
>> > >
>> > >> Hi all!
>> > >>
>> > >> I've newly joined the organizers list.
>> > >>
>> > >> My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
>> > >>
>> > >> regards!
>> > >>
>> > >> --
>> > >> sheila at codersquid.com
>> > >> _______________________________________________
>> > >> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > >> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > >> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > >>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > --
>> > > Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
>> > > Scientific software developer
>> > > Enthought, Inc.
>> > > 245 Park Avenue,
>> > > New York, NY 10167
>> > > kjordahl at enthought.com
>> > > 1-973-996-8401
>> > > http://www.enthought.com
>> > > _______________________________________________
>> > > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://katyhuff.github.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers

From stefan at sun.ac.za  Sun Oct 27 13:18:47 2013
From: stefan at sun.ac.za (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?St=E9fan_van_der_Walt?=)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 19:18:47 +0200
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] SciPy2014 Kickoff Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABDkGQ=Ou9QFnN2q4PR6QXXZ0nQaDy1+=dug83LF+0MY6SOL-g@mail.gmail.com>

Andy,

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:03 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Please fill out the poll for when you can meet next week.  I've
> selfishly only chosen times that correspond to my own schedule.

Unfortunately, I am unable to meet next week, but I follow along on
the list with interest.

Regards
St?fan


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Sun Oct 27 23:06:23 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Sun, 27 Oct 2013 22:06:23 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] SciPy2014 Kickoff Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSRkm+TSKScYfN3KA2CunT4ReXWH52JKX9a1kjEy9CwagQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

Looks like we have such an active community this year that I'm not
going to be able to accommodate you all.  That said, I'll have two
meetings this week.

Wednesday, October 30, 5pm
Thursday, October 31, 11am

Please send me your skype id and which meeting you plan to be at.

-- Andy

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello All,
>
> Kelsey and I would like to invite all this year's organizers to a
> Skype kick off.  The point of this call is to just introduce everyone
> and discuss major decision points for SciPy2014.
>
> Please fill out the poll for when you can meet next week.  I've
> selfishly only chosen times that correspond to my own schedule.
>
> Submit times: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h
> Results: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/results/w5bhpn
> Edit: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/edit/w5bhpn
>
> -- Andy


From matthewturk at gmail.com  Mon Oct 28 06:46:48 2013
From: matthewturk at gmail.com (Matthew Turk)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 06:46:48 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] SciPy2014 Kickoff Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSRkm+TSKScYfN3KA2CunT4ReXWH52JKX9a1kjEy9CwagQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSRkm+TSKScYfN3KA2CunT4ReXWH52JKX9a1kjEy9CwagQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALO3=5GCBDVrZqOfXHfP3yyYiv=wMxQ75cwmszgOW38xW+6rhQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 11:06 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Looks like we have such an active community this year that I'm not
> going to be able to accommodate you all.  That said, I'll have two
> meetings this week.
>
> Wednesday, October 30, 5pm
> Thursday, October 31, 11am
>
> Please send me your skype id and which meeting you plan to be at.
>

Sorry to be dense, but these are the US central time zone times, right?

-Matt

> -- Andy
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Kelsey and I would like to invite all this year's organizers to a
>> Skype kick off.  The point of this call is to just introduce everyone
>> and discuss major decision points for SciPy2014.
>>
>> Please fill out the poll for when you can meet next week.  I've
>> selfishly only chosen times that correspond to my own schedule.
>>
>> Submit times: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h
>> Results: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/results/w5bhpn
>> Edit: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/edit/w5bhpn
>>
>> -- Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Mon Oct 28 10:18:48 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 09:18:48 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] SciPy2014 Kickoff Meeting
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSRkm+TSKScYfN3KA2CunT4ReXWH52JKX9a1kjEy9CwagQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSTbkFAmfB1iebgF6K0zL9ekx9SdOHrGnAu0ZZcfdkP5HQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSRkm+TSKScYfN3KA2CunT4ReXWH52JKX9a1kjEy9CwagQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSRO8vU-C+X-5GB8t7S+zMcyPJv_krzMs6AR-QFM5bnTmg@mail.gmail.com>

For all who have yet to establish a psychic link with me, the times is
Austin time (CDT -- UTC/GMT -5 hours) which will get fun for the
non-US folks on this list in a few weeks.

-- Andy

On Sun, Oct 27, 2013 at 10:06 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> Looks like we have such an active community this year that I'm not
> going to be able to accommodate you all.  That said, I'll have two
> meetings this week.
>
> Wednesday, October 30, 5pm
> Thursday, October 31, 11am
>
> Please send me your skype id and which meeting you plan to be at.
>
> -- Andy
>
> On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 5:03 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Kelsey and I would like to invite all this year's organizers to a
>> Skype kick off.  The point of this call is to just introduce everyone
>> and discuss major decision points for SciPy2014.
>>
>> Please fill out the poll for when you can meet next week.  I've
>> selfishly only chosen times that correspond to my own schedule.
>>
>> Submit times: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h
>> Results: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/results/w5bhpn
>> Edit: http://whenisgood.net/xhyj37h/edit/w5bhpn
>>
>> -- Andy


From vp73nk15105872626 at 139.com  Mon Oct 28 10:48:06 2013
From: vp73nk15105872626 at 139.com (=?GB2312?B?uu7JusH1?=)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:48:06 -0000
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] =?gb2312?b?NTU3NTk4vbUgtc0gv+IgtOYgs8kgsb41?=
	=?gb2312?b?NTc1OTg=?=
Message-ID: <20131028144804.AAA30324B9@scipy.org>

OK

From sheila at codersquid.com  Mon Oct 28 12:28:57 2013
From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:28:57 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Reproducible science track
In-Reply-To: <CAFoDED0FfGEOEx97CrqY=c9s4m7WEjDfk2Spr2ObfhR9_ScObg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAK7W4dEXLNEkgBuLuuJAoNynyWvvWaNOV7GFvd--6cwpXS2QxA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f5qvBcSYQETyzcdhhyzMdYRvByfh7ui7ZgJPRKrXpCQMg@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAFoDED0FfGEOEx97CrqY=c9s4m7WEjDfk2Spr2ObfhR9_ScObg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK7W4dFtZ6aARszjhPy11mm6F1fnz7R_Y3Fu_haeyvDNN7=h4A@mail.gmail.com>

I agree reproducibility can fall under the education theme. And, it's
a good follow up from last year.

On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Katy Huff <katyhuff at gmail.com> wrote:
> Indeed, as Kelsey said, we've zeroed in on a likely pair. Traditionally the
> themes change from year to year so reproducibility will have to wait for
> another year. That said, I know a lot of the stuff that falls under
> reproducibility will have a home in the scientific computing education
> theme.
> I hope everyone is as excited as I am about that!
>
> Katy
>
>
> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 9:07 AM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Sheila,
>>
>> The preliminary topics we have discussed for tracks this year are
>> Geospatial Data and Education, but these are still up for discussion.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Kelsey
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 25, 2013 at 12:04 PM, sheila miguez
>> <sheila at codersquid.com>wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all!
>> >
>> > I've newly joined the organizers list.
>> >
>> > My first question: Will there be another reproducible science track?
>> >
>> > regards!
>> >
>> > --
>> > sheila at codersquid.com
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
>> Scientific software developer
>> Enthought, Inc.
>> 245 Park Avenue,
>> New York, NY 10167
>> kjordahl at enthought.com
>> 1-973-996-8401
>> http://www.enthought.com
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>
>
>
>
> --
> http://katyhuff.github.com



-- 
sheila at codersquid.com


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Mon Oct 28 12:44:12 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:44:12 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
Message-ID: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)

I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
the different scipy org communities.

I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/

Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org

Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.

-- Andy


From jakevdp at cs.washington.edu  Mon Oct 28 14:49:51 2013
From: jakevdp at cs.washington.edu (Jacob Vanderplas)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 11:49:51 -0700
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>

I love the new look Andy - thanks for putting some work into this.
  Jake


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
> a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
> https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)
>
> I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
> the different scipy org communities.
>
> I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/
>
> Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org
>
> Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.
>
> -- Andy
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>


From jrocher at enthought.com  Mon Oct 28 15:40:58 2013
From: jrocher at enthought.com (Jonathan Rocher)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:40:58 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOzk5Qe1Kcixr6=qe_KvQxsr9d7j_0NC2ToFOJJ8p_1uwN6tHQ@mail.gmail.com>

Yes Andy, this looks quite nice!

I would suggest one thing: we could recycle our description of one of the
conferences to describe what all these conferences are at the top of the
page. Currently, one would have to choose one of the 3 conferences to know
what they are about. Something like (please adjust number of days based on
what is true for all 3 conferences):

The annual SciPy Conferences allows participants from academic, commercial,
and governmental organizations to showcase their latest Scientific Python
projects, learn from skilled users and developers, and collaborate on code
development. The conference consists of multiple days of tutorials followed
by two-three days of presentations, and concludes with 1-2 days developer
sprints on projects of interest to the attendees. Select one of the
conferences (USA, Europe, India) to get a more precise feel for what the
next edition will bring you.
And a cool image to go with it goes a long way to get it...

My 2 cents,
Jonathan

Ps The link to SciPy INDIA seems to be wrong or the server is down...


On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jacob Vanderplas <jakevdp at cs.washington.edu
> wrote:

> I love the new look Andy - thanks for putting some work into this.
>   Jake
>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > Hello all,
> >
> > Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
> > a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
> > https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)
> >
> > I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
> > the different scipy org communities.
> >
> > I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/
> >
> > Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org
> >
> > Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.
> >
> > -- Andy
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>



-- 
Jonathan Rocher, PhD
Scientific software developer
Enthought, Inc.
jrocher at enthought.com
1-512-536-1057
http://www.enthought.com


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Mon Oct 28 15:48:13 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Mon, 28 Oct 2013 14:48:13 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CAOzk5Qe1Kcixr6=qe_KvQxsr9d7j_0NC2ToFOJJ8p_1uwN6tHQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzk5Qe1Kcixr6=qe_KvQxsr9d7j_0NC2ToFOJJ8p_1uwN6tHQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSSaqr179u5PG9xOJvay9NZBDKgdeaGUbj00u9smKLYopw@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Rocher <jrocher at enthought.com> wrote:
> Yes Andy, this looks quite nice!
>
> I would suggest one thing: we could recycle our description of one of the
> conferences to describe what all these conferences are at the top of the
> page. Currently, one would have to choose one of the 3 conferences to know
> what they are about. Something like (please adjust number of days based on
> what is true for all 3 conferences):
>
> The annual SciPy Conferences allows participants from academic, commercial,
> and governmental organizations to showcase their latest Scientific Python
> projects, learn from skilled users and developers, and collaborate on code
> development. The conference consists of multiple days of tutorials followed
> by two-three days of presentations, and concludes with 1-2 days developer
> sprints on projects of interest to the attendees. Select one of the
> conferences (USA, Europe, India) to get a more precise feel for what the
> next edition will bring you.

Does every scipy conference follow this format?  I think SciPy
Argentina was just talks.  Will add some flavor text...

>
> And a cool image to go with it goes a long way to get it...

Sounds good. Find an image and I might be able to put it up (please
pay attention to copyright).

>
> My 2 cents,
> Jonathan
>
> Ps The link to SciPy INDIA seems to be wrong or the server is down...

The server is down, I already emailed Prabhu.


>
>
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jacob Vanderplas
> <jakevdp at cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I love the new look Andy - thanks for putting some work into this.
>>   Jake
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andy Ray Terrel
>> <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>> > Hello all,
>> >
>> > Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
>> > a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
>> > https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)
>> >
>> > I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
>> > the different scipy org communities.
>> >
>> > I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/
>> >
>> > Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org
>> >
>> > Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.
>> >
>> > -- Andy
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>
>
>
>
> --
> Jonathan Rocher, PhD
> Scientific software developer
> Enthought, Inc.
> jrocher at enthought.com
> 1-512-536-1057
> http://www.enthought.com


From jacob.barhak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 10:01:51 2013
From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:01:51 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
Message-ID: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>

Hello to all SciPy organizers. 

This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy. 

The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems 

The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication. 

Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative. 

I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product. 

I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:

1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc. 

2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting. 

3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process. 

Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy. 

There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions. 

        Jacob

Sent from my iPhone

From matthewturk at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 10:13:11 2013
From: matthewturk at gmail.com (Matthew Turk)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:13:11 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Jacob,

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>
> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>
> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>
> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>
> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.

I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .

>
> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>
> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>
> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>
> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>
> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>
> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>
> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.

Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.

-Matt

>
>         Jacob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From jacob.barhak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 10:38:05 2013
From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 09:38:05 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>

Hi Matt,

The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference. 

As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base. 

If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind. 

Thanks for your fast response. 

        Jacob

Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Jacob,
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>> 
>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>> 
>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>> 
>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>> 
>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
> 
> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
> 
>> 
>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>> 
>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>> 
>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>> 
>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>> 
>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>> 
>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>> 
>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
> 
> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
> 
> -Matt
> 
>> 
>>        Jacob
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 11:46:56 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 10:46:56 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello All,

Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
Let me try to summarize what has been going on.

First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
 I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
competitive market (academic and otherwise).

Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
(With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
"Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
experience with challenging the publishing norms.)

Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)

Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
system based on Github pull requests
(https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed).
 This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
(https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
procedure that will attract more attention.

At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
 I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.

-- Andy



On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Matt,
>
> The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference.
>
> As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
>
> If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind.
>
> Thanks for your fast response.
>
>         Jacob
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Jacob,
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>>>
>>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>>>
>>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>>>
>>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>>>
>>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
>>
>> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
>> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
>> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
>> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
>> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
>> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
>> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
>>
>>>
>>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>>>
>>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>>>
>>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>>>
>>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>>>
>>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>>>
>>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>>>
>>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
>>
>> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
>> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
>> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
>> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
>> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
>> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
>> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
>> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
>>
>> -Matt
>>
>>>
>>>        Jacob
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From scopatz at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 12:28:58 2013
From: scopatz at gmail.com (Anthony Scopatz)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:28:58 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPk-6T5qe9yLqwVp76u0QHBhiNzWLBUCZtKZFQYgLLCw=WCVwg@mail.gmail.com>

Andy,

As someone who has historically been critical of the proceedings
procedure, I'd like to thank you for writing this.  I completely agree
with both the vision you outlined and the synopsis of how we got to
where we are now.

We do "need to hold ourselves to standards that are much higher
than our many academic peers."  While reasonable people may disagree
on some of the particulars, it really does take people to make this
happen and make it successful.  Furthermore, if you want your voice
heard in the process you have to participate.

I encourage everyone who thinks that they should help to actually help.
I also urge people to rope in their friends who may not be on this
mailing list, but are also stakeholders in this, to come in and participate.

I believe that the future holds a lot of promise predicated on folks coming
in and doing their best.

Be Well
Anthony


On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:46 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Hello All,
>
> Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
> have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
> Let me try to summarize what has been going on.
>
> First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
>  I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
> towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
> scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
> showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
> As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
> work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
> tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
> test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
> scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
> competitive market (academic and otherwise).
>
> Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
> Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
> SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
> conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
> no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
> wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
> had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
> few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
> archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
> this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
> publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
> (With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
> "Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
> experience with challenging the publishing norms.)
>
> Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
> the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
> low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
> prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
> was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
> unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
> that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
> invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
> a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
> pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
> strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
> for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
> I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)
>
> Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
> system based on Github pull requests
> (
> https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed
> ).
>  This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
> but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
> stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
> this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
> would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
> procedure that will attract more attention.
>
> At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
> state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
> well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
> and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
>  I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
> produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
> a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
> standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.
>
> -- Andy
>
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Hi Matt,
> >
> > The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process -
> there are many ideas out there in that conference.
> >
> > As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a
> very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how
> to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the
> 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always
> build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
> >
> > If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible
> to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can
> help here if you have specifics in mind.
> >
> > Thanks for your fast response.
> >
> >         Jacob
> >
> > Sent from my iPhone
> >
> > On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Hi Jacob,
> >>
> >> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
> >>>
> >>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the
> organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in
> 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger
> pool of opinions in SciPy.
> >>>
> >>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot
> keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
> >>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
> >>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
> >>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those
> systems
> >>>
> >>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication
> alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old
> journal type publication.
> >>>
> >>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other
> recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system
> is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good
> base for forming such an alternative.
> >>
> >> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
> >> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
> >> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
> >> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
> >> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
> >> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
> >> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
> >>
> >>>
> >>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked
> and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see
> more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where
> someone has to sign on a product.
> >>>
> >>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep
> publication effective:
> >>>
> >>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy
> proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
> >>>
> >>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting.
> Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding
> non time consuming formatting.
> >>>
> >>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind
> review process.
> >>>
> >>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after
> publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review
> as part of participating in SciPy.
> >>>
> >>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those
> issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to
> influence the scientific community in better directions.
> >>
> >> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
> >> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
> >> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
> >> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
> >> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
> >> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
> >> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
> >> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
> >>
> >> -Matt
> >>
> >>>
> >>>        Jacob
> >>>
> >>> Sent from my iPhone
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> >>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> >>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>


From jacob.barhak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 12:48:56 2013
From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:48:56 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

Thanks for the explanation. However you should be aware that a review process is free in all publication methods I encounter. Even editorial board members are free. 

I was serving as an editorial board member for a while. No one pays anything and furthermore people avoid being reviewers. 

To collect 3 valid reviews for a paper you sometimes need to send about 50 to 70 invitations. And even people who promised to review many times do not complete it in reasonable time or just change their minds. There is no incentive for reviewing and despite importance people do not volunteer. The search for reviewers becomes a data entry job. 

The same problem is probably plaguing the entire scientific publication system. We are just seeing part of a bigger breakdown that had many negative effects. 

I believe this is time for new solutions and there are plenty of ideas. Yet the volunteer system of SciPy is nit an excuse not to push forward - everyone uses volunteers for review. 

And with regards to testing external partners - I disagree with you. You can tell a candidate that you will be testing them - it is quite regular in many occasions - why not a candidate publisher?

I strongly support a github based review system. 

         Jacob



Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello All,
> 
> Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
> have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
> Let me try to summarize what has been going on.
> 
> First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
> I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
> towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
> scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
> showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
> As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
> work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
> tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
> test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
> scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
> competitive market (academic and otherwise).
> 
> Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
> Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
> SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
> conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
> no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
> wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
> had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
> few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
> archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
> this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
> publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
> (With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
> "Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
> experience with challenging the publishing norms.)
> 
> Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
> the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
> low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
> prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
> was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
> unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
> that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
> invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
> a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
> pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
> strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
> for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
> I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)
> 
> Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
> system based on Github pull requests
> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed).
> This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
> but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
> stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
> this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
> would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
> procedure that will attract more attention.
> 
> At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
> state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
> well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
> and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
> I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
> produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
> a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
> standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.
> 
> -- Andy
> 
> 
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Matt,
>> 
>> The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference.
>> 
>> As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
>> 
>> If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind.
>> 
>> Thanks for your fast response.
>> 
>>        Jacob
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hi Jacob,
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>>>> 
>>>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>>>> 
>>>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>>>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>>>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>>>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>>>> 
>>>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>>>> 
>>>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
>>> 
>>> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
>>> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
>>> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
>>> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
>>> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
>>> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
>>> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>>>> 
>>>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>>>> 
>>>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>>>> 
>>>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>>>> 
>>>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>>>> 
>>>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>>>> 
>>>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
>>> 
>>> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
>>> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
>>> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
>>> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
>>> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
>>> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
>>> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
>>> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
>>> 
>>> -Matt
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>       Jacob
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 12:58:36 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 11:58:36 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSQx+N6mj81SUYOMH7DZX+Tgj0rAJKi-1SKU2bdctvt0CA@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Jacob,

The writers and reviewers are never paid (with cash), but everyone
else at the journals are.  This is a multi-billion dollar market.  The
SciPy conference plays the role of the publisher in this case and the
community reviews it.  Since we don't have any revenue to build out a
system, the volunteer network has to build everything here.

As far as testing goes, we should find our path first.

-- Andy

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for the explanation. However you should be aware that a review process is free in all publication methods I encounter. Even editorial board members are free.
>
> I was serving as an editorial board member for a while. No one pays anything and furthermore people avoid being reviewers.
>
> To collect 3 valid reviews for a paper you sometimes need to send about 50 to 70 invitations. And even people who promised to review many times do not complete it in reasonable time or just change their minds. There is no incentive for reviewing and despite importance people do not volunteer. The search for reviewers becomes a data entry job.
>
> The same problem is probably plaguing the entire scientific publication system. We are just seeing part of a bigger breakdown that had many negative effects.
>
> I believe this is time for new solutions and there are plenty of ideas. Yet the volunteer system of SciPy is nit an excuse not to push forward - everyone uses volunteers for review.
>
> And with regards to testing external partners - I disagree with you. You can tell a candidate that you will be testing them - it is quite regular in many occasions - why not a candidate publisher?
>
> I strongly support a github based review system.
>
>          Jacob
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
>> have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
>> Let me try to summarize what has been going on.
>>
>> First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
>> I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
>> towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
>> scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
>> showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
>> As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
>> work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
>> tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
>> test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
>> scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
>> competitive market (academic and otherwise).
>>
>> Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
>> Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
>> SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
>> conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
>> no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
>> wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
>> had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
>> few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
>> archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
>> this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
>> publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
>> (With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
>> "Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
>> experience with challenging the publishing norms.)
>>
>> Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
>> the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
>> low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
>> prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
>> was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
>> unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
>> that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
>> invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
>> a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
>> pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
>> strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
>> for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
>> I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)
>>
>> Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
>> system based on Github pull requests
>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed).
>> This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
>> but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
>> stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
>> this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
>> would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
>> procedure that will attract more attention.
>>
>> At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
>> state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
>> well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
>> and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
>> I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
>> produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
>> a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
>> standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.
>>
>> -- Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference.
>>>
>>> As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
>>>
>>> If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your fast response.
>>>
>>>        Jacob
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>>>>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>>>>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>>>>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>>>>>
>>>>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
>>>>
>>>> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
>>>> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
>>>> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
>>>> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
>>>> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
>>>> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
>>>> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
>>>> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
>>>> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
>>>> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
>>>> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
>>>> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
>>>> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
>>>> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Jacob
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 19:54:24 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 18:54:24 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSSaqr179u5PG9xOJvay9NZBDKgdeaGUbj00u9smKLYopw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzk5Qe1Kcixr6=qe_KvQxsr9d7j_0NC2ToFOJJ8p_1uwN6tHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSaqr179u5PG9xOJvay9NZBDKgdeaGUbj00u9smKLYopw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSRwGtbrSM4=Rfr2r0TPq_pDMCd+b5vAqHGdDoXs1CcnjQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hello all,

The new site is alive. I'll get the github repo updated tonight as well.

conference.scipy.org

Please report any bug to
https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org

-- Andy

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Jonathan Rocher <jrocher at enthought.com> wrote:
>> Yes Andy, this looks quite nice!
>>
>> I would suggest one thing: we could recycle our description of one of the
>> conferences to describe what all these conferences are at the top of the
>> page. Currently, one would have to choose one of the 3 conferences to know
>> what they are about. Something like (please adjust number of days based on
>> what is true for all 3 conferences):
>>
>> The annual SciPy Conferences allows participants from academic, commercial,
>> and governmental organizations to showcase their latest Scientific Python
>> projects, learn from skilled users and developers, and collaborate on code
>> development. The conference consists of multiple days of tutorials followed
>> by two-three days of presentations, and concludes with 1-2 days developer
>> sprints on projects of interest to the attendees. Select one of the
>> conferences (USA, Europe, India) to get a more precise feel for what the
>> next edition will bring you.
>
> Does every scipy conference follow this format?  I think SciPy
> Argentina was just talks.  Will add some flavor text...
>
>>
>> And a cool image to go with it goes a long way to get it...
>
> Sounds good. Find an image and I might be able to put it up (please
> pay attention to copyright).
>
>>
>> My 2 cents,
>> Jonathan
>>
>> Ps The link to SciPy INDIA seems to be wrong or the server is down...
>
> The server is down, I already emailed Prabhu.
>
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 1:49 PM, Jacob Vanderplas
>> <jakevdp at cs.washington.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I love the new look Andy - thanks for putting some work into this.
>>>   Jake
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Andy Ray Terrel
>>> <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:
>>>
>>> > Hello all,
>>> >
>>> > Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
>>> > a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
>>> > https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)
>>> >
>>> > I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
>>> > the different scipy org communities.
>>> >
>>> > I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/
>>> >
>>> > Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org
>>> >
>>> > Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.
>>> >
>>> > -- Andy
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>> >
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jonathan Rocher, PhD
>> Scientific software developer
>> Enthought, Inc.
>> jrocher at enthought.com
>> 1-512-536-1057
>> http://www.enthought.com


From jacob.barhak at gmail.com  Tue Oct 29 22:05:52 2013
From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak)
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2013 21:05:52 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSQx+N6mj81SUYOMH7DZX+Tgj0rAJKi-1SKU2bdctvt0CA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSQx+N6mj81SUYOMH7DZX+Tgj0rAJKi-1SKU2bdctvt0CA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <A8B149E4-88DC-43BB-8A46-71C067F0CAB0@gmail.com>

Hi Andy,

Yet you already have a good base system. GitHub is superior to scholar one in many aspects. I worked with Scholar one for quite a while - I am not sure the money invested it is what makes things tick. 

Github is also better in archiving. These days you can find things faster with a Google search than by looking specifically for a certain archival journal. So the argument of archival preservation no longer holds - technology has changed, it is better we realize this and detach from the past. 

What makes thing tick is what people consider a target for publication. This is an acquired taste that changes in time. We want to gain this acquired taste. 

There are ways to incentivize people. To be effective allow me to make a suggestions for your consideration:

People submitting a paper will be asked to openly review other submissions on github. 

The following incentives may be used:
1. A paper should have at least an X number of positive reviews to get accepted. 
2. A paper will not be accepted unless you perform X reviews for other papers
3. Each paper reviewed by a participant will get a token such as a T shirt, food, enter a raffle, or get ranked in a hall of fame. 
4. Only the N papers ranked highest in the reviews get accepted. 

You can think of other such rules. Yet the basic idea is that people will be expected to provide a review as well as a paper. This may give several benefits:
1. People will know about other SciPy participants and their work before the conference, which may increase ties during the conference. 
2. You will get some level of review that will give additional information on a paper and help increase quality. 
3. People will submit papers ahead of time since they will require review to get in. 
4. This may require minimal effort from the organizers since responsibility is from participants. Never the less outside reviews can be solicited as well. 

They may be negative effects as well such as teaming into cohorts or misunderstandings due to a new policy or good papers being skipped by review, or grudges. Yet overall I believe such effects can be diminished by proper guidance. 

I would appreciate reading your thoughts on this approach. 

        Jacob


Sent from my iPhone

On Oct 29, 2013, at 11:58 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Jacob,
> 
> The writers and reviewers are never paid (with cash), but everyone
> else at the journals are.  This is a multi-billion dollar market.  The
> SciPy conference plays the role of the publisher in this case and the
> community reviews it.  Since we don't have any revenue to build out a
> system, the volunteer network has to build everything here.
> 
> As far as testing goes, we should find our path first.
> 
> -- Andy
> 
> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hi Andy,
>> 
>> Thanks for the explanation. However you should be aware that a review process is free in all publication methods I encounter. Even editorial board members are free.
>> 
>> I was serving as an editorial board member for a while. No one pays anything and furthermore people avoid being reviewers.
>> 
>> To collect 3 valid reviews for a paper you sometimes need to send about 50 to 70 invitations. And even people who promised to review many times do not complete it in reasonable time or just change their minds. There is no incentive for reviewing and despite importance people do not volunteer. The search for reviewers becomes a data entry job.
>> 
>> The same problem is probably plaguing the entire scientific publication system. We are just seeing part of a bigger breakdown that had many negative effects.
>> 
>> I believe this is time for new solutions and there are plenty of ideas. Yet the volunteer system of SciPy is nit an excuse not to push forward - everyone uses volunteers for review.
>> 
>> And with regards to testing external partners - I disagree with you. You can tell a candidate that you will be testing them - it is quite regular in many occasions - why not a candidate publisher?
>> 
>> I strongly support a github based review system.
>> 
>>         Jacob
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Sent from my iPhone
>> 
>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> Hello All,
>>> 
>>> Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
>>> have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
>>> Let me try to summarize what has been going on.
>>> 
>>> First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
>>> I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
>>> towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
>>> scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
>>> showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
>>> As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
>>> work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
>>> tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
>>> test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
>>> scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
>>> competitive market (academic and otherwise).
>>> 
>>> Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
>>> Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
>>> SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
>>> conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
>>> no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
>>> wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
>>> had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
>>> few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
>>> archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
>>> this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
>>> publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
>>> (With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
>>> "Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
>>> experience with challenging the publishing norms.)
>>> 
>>> Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
>>> the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
>>> low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
>>> prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
>>> was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
>>> unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
>>> that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
>>> invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
>>> a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
>>> pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
>>> strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
>>> for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
>>> I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)
>>> 
>>> Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
>>> system based on Github pull requests
>>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed).
>>> This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
>>> but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
>>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
>>> stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
>>> this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
>>> would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
>>> procedure that will attract more attention.
>>> 
>>> At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
>>> state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
>>> well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
>>> and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
>>> I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
>>> produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
>>> a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
>>> standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.
>>> 
>>> -- Andy
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi Matt,
>>>> 
>>>> The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference.
>>>> 
>>>> As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
>>>> 
>>>> If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks for your fast response.
>>>> 
>>>>       Jacob
>>>> 
>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>> 
>>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>> 
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>>>>>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>>>>>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>>>>>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
>>>>> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
>>>>> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
>>>>> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
>>>>> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
>>>>> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
>>>>> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
>>>>> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
>>>>> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
>>>>> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
>>>>> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
>>>>> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
>>>>> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
>>>>> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -Matt
>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>      Jacob
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>>>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From pdebuyl at ulb.ac.be  Wed Oct 30 06:24:52 2013
From: pdebuyl at ulb.ac.be (Pierre de Buyl)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:24:52 +0100
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] [euroscipy-org] New landing page for
	conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20131030102452.GD17807@pi-x230>

Hi Andy,

Very nice idea! I added a short EuroSciPy 2013 debrief :-)

Cheers,

Pierre

On Mon, Oct 28, 2013 at 11:44:12AM -0500, Andy Ray Terrel wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> Not sure if everyone is following along, but there's an effort to have
> a better landing page at conference.scipy.org.  (See
> https://github.com/scipy-conference/conf_2014/issues/4)
> 
> I would appreciate any feedback on the idea of having a blog for all
> the different scipy org communities.
> 
> I've put up: http://conference.scipy.org/new/
> 
> Based on: https://github.com/scipy-conference/conference.scipy.org
> 
> Once I get some feedback I'll move it over.
> 
> -- Andy


From prabhu at enthought.com  Wed Oct 30 08:55:53 2013
From: prabhu at enthought.com (Prabhu Ramachandran)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 18:25:53 +0530
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] New landing page for conference.scipy.org
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSSaqr179u5PG9xOJvay9NZBDKgdeaGUbj00u9smKLYopw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CA+WonSR2=VgXZ7zt9TQNKkuwSYHRa1gOf5yZtXCxy-KXBMdU2Q@mail.gmail.com>
	<CACpqBg1z4fD1ATjvy7mShQWRugWvDg=8pMJqZLMa2PdT8tNGLw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAOzk5Qe1Kcixr6=qe_KvQxsr9d7j_0NC2ToFOJJ8p_1uwN6tHQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSaqr179u5PG9xOJvay9NZBDKgdeaGUbj00u9smKLYopw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAHscO-R+c=8J7c1MKB4aNqp0ATDBLKrQi0atPcF8nnQKh5-mwg@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 1:18 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> >
> > My 2 cents,
> > Jonathan
> >
> > Ps The link to SciPy INDIA seems to be wrong or the server is down...
>
> The server is down, I already emailed Prabhu.


Thanks!  We had a hard disk crash on fossee, this has been fixed, there are
still some strange errors but the site should be up.

cheers,
Prabhu


From sheila at codersquid.com  Wed Oct 30 12:25:09 2013
From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 11:25:09 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CAPk-6T5qe9yLqwVp76u0QHBhiNzWLBUCZtKZFQYgLLCw=WCVwg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAPk-6T5qe9yLqwVp76u0QHBhiNzWLBUCZtKZFQYgLLCw=WCVwg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK7W4dHWYgVSNum3n2Ac35sm4pJaHcWOBwGomrME+DKz-PBMiw@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

I am glad this thread started.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:28 AM, Anthony Scopatz <scopatz at gmail.com> wrote:
> I encourage everyone who thinks that they should help to actually help.
> I also urge people to rope in their friends who may not be on this
> mailing list, but are also stakeholders in this, to come in and participate.

I'm sending a few emails out today with a link to this thread and a
request that they participate. Hopefully they will join and introduce
themselves.

One idea I have is that we could ask people who are interested in
helping with the proceedings system to have some sprints/project
nights with their local communities to see if they can build up a good
cadence and pool of volunteers at all levels leading up to the
conference as well as participating in a conference sprint with the
goal of standing up a proceedings site?

I know that type of activity is hard to do and sustain, because I've
had partial success maintaining regular project nights at my local
hackerspace and python user groups. However, think project nights that
are more focused than general may have more success.


-- 
sheila at codersquid.com


From sheila at codersquid.com  Wed Oct 30 14:26:38 2013
From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 13:26:38 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK7W4dGosv1jUmqzOe=sjW0CQx-NvsxScDe=GHDfP58sjSkE3w@mail.gmail.com>

I forgot to reply-all.

Hi all,

With respect to testing external parters (who have open and free
platforms in the sense of FLOSS*), it could be interesting and fun for
people to try building prototypes and/or extending systems -- but not
close to the conference. We could find interested volunteers who may
not have experience doing scientific programming but who are
interesting in open science and FLOSS projects and this would give
them a way to explore their interests and work with us before the
conference. Closer to the conference (months?) I would be less
interested in spending time on experimental prototypes.

But, there are so many exciting things going on,
<https://khinsen.wordpress.com/2013/09/27/activepapers-for-python/>
just for one example. I imagine people would find it fun to experiment
try out these ideas in a real context rather than a hypothetical one.
I know I would.

Disclosure, I work for Victoria Stodden on an open source project
related to this, so I am biased.

Ps. I do like the process of open review that I've seen people doing
on github using issues and pull requests.

* as opposed to something like the executable papers that Elsevier has.

On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 11:48 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Andy,
>
> Thanks for the explanation. However you should be aware that a review process is free in all publication methods I encounter. Even editorial board members are free.
>
> I was serving as an editorial board member for a while. No one pays anything and furthermore people avoid being reviewers.
>
> To collect 3 valid reviews for a paper you sometimes need to send about 50 to 70 invitations. And even people who promised to review many times do not complete it in reasonable time or just change their minds. There is no incentive for reviewing and despite importance people do not volunteer. The search for reviewers becomes a data entry job.
>
> The same problem is probably plaguing the entire scientific publication system. We are just seeing part of a bigger breakdown that had many negative effects.
>
> I believe this is time for new solutions and there are plenty of ideas. Yet the volunteer system of SciPy is nit an excuse not to push forward - everyone uses volunteers for review.
>
> And with regards to testing external partners - I disagree with you. You can tell a candidate that you will be testing them - it is quite regular in many occasions - why not a candidate publisher?
>
> I strongly support a github based review system.
>
>          Jacob
>
>
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Oct 29, 2013, at 10:46 AM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello All,
>>
>> Before we start discussing the future of SciPy Proceedings, we need to
>> have a little perspective on where things are and who is involved.
>> Let me try to summarize what has been going on.
>>
>> First, we have to ask why does SciPy have a proceedings to begin with.
>> I think one answer is that the current state of journals is hostile
>> towards publishing ideas our communities hold dear.  Things like
>> scientific software should be built to be usable and here is a code
>> showing something that is known but done in a way that is accessible.
>> As co-chair the intention was to get more recognition for the amazing
>> work coming out of our community, while a video of a talk is nice and
>> tweets draw interest, archived well done publications stand a longer
>> test of time.  By helping our community publish more we help the
>> scientific software field legitimize itself in the ever increasingly
>> competitive market (academic and otherwise).
>>
>> Second, we have to establish a means. Companies such as IOP and
>> Elsevier make money off such publications.  Even societies such as
>> SIAM and ACM draw the majority of their funds from journal and
>> conference proceedings.  SciPy Proceedings is entirely volunteer with
>> no revenue and this needs to be kept in mind when deciding these
>> wonderful goals, whose gonna do the work and why.  While I think we
>> had a much more positive review process last year than in the previous
>> few years, we still don't have the proceedings up in a readable,
>> archivable format. Without a surge of fresh hands helping out with
>> this portion of the conference, (actually reviewing, helping with the
>> publishing, and so on) I am hesitant to push forward on this pursuit.
>> (With that said, I've added two positions to the SciPy2014 board as
>> "Technical Committee Chairs" including Sheila who has a great deal of
>> experience with challenging the publishing norms.)
>>
>> Third, a bit of history.  Last year we pursued a route of having both
>> the proceedings that included our traditional 6 page documents with a
>> low review overhead and including a focus issue with a more
>> prestigious open journal, Computational Science and Discovery.  CSD
>> was a newer journal trying to push changes in the field, but
>> unfortunately have had many setbacks (including staffing problems)
>> that have basically hamstrung our interactions.  At SciPy2013 I had
>> invited several journal editors in scientific computing to be part of
>> a BOF that ended up being canceled due to their unavailability.  I was
>> pleased that the Center for Open Science was still able to have a
>> strong presence.  CSD is still interested in having the focus issue
>> for SciPy2013, but I am not very confident that it will happen (yes,
>> I'm emailing them quite a bit these days.)
>>
>> Finally, where are we.  Last year Jarrod and St?fan built a review
>> system based on Github pull requests
>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/pulls?direction=desc&page=1&sort=created&state=closed).
>> This replaced the previous system of putting reviews on the website,
>> but SciPy2013 Proceedings website has yet to be built
>> (https://github.com/scipy/scipy_proceedings/issues/70).  Jarrod has
>> stepped down as chair and we are still searching for the co-chair for
>> this role.  I think there is a lot of potential in this approach but
>> would agree it needs a few steps to make a well-done professional
>> procedure that will attract more attention.
>>
>> At this point of the juncture, I am convince if we want to change the
>> state of things we need to do it ourselves in a professional
>> well-publicized manner, or find a strong partner (investing in Jarrod
>> and Stefan's github review system, Center for Open Science, inSCIght).
>> I would prefer to take partners at face value and work with them to
>> produce a product, not a disguised test of their services. Finally in
>> a time of crisis in scientific research, we need to hold ourselves to
>> standards that are much higher than our many academic peers.
>>
>> -- Andy
>>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi Matt,
>>>
>>> The link you sent is relevant yet will take a long time to process - there are many ideas out there in that conference.
>>>
>>> As for your second remark regarding partnering. Well, you can have a very basic solution with little effort using github and just specifying how to use it properly. The 2013 github publication model combined with the 2012 open review policy may be a good base. From there on you can always build further. Yet first you should have a solid  simple base.
>>>
>>> If you wish to test an external partner for publication it is possible to test beforehand by submitting a paper and see how it is handled - I can help here if you have specifics in mind.
>>>
>>> Thanks for your fast response.
>>>
>>>        Jacob
>>>
>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>
>>> On Oct 29, 2013, at 9:13 AM, Matthew Turk <matthewturk at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Jacob,
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Oct 29, 2013 at 10:01 AM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hello to all SciPy organizers.
>>>>>
>>>>> This is submitted here after an email conversation with some of the organizers pointing towards an ineffective journal publication venue in 2013. Andy invited me to send the conversation here to address a larger pool of opinions in SciPy.
>>>>>
>>>>> The traditional journal publication system is quite broken and cannot keep up with technological changes. Here are some examples:
>>>>> 1. The review processes are cumbersome blind and long
>>>>> 2. Journal publications are not geared towards code publication
>>>>> 3. Version control and sharing are not embedded in most of those systems
>>>>>
>>>>> The changing landscape of technology may call for other publication alternatives for the SciPy proceedings that do not need to rely on old journal type publication.
>>>>>
>>>>> Journal publications are still used for promotion and other recognition within the scientific community, yet if the traditional system is so broken, then it is time for a better alternative. SciPy is a good base for forming such an alternative.
>>>>
>>>> I find this to be an extremely interesting avenue, and SciPy is indeed
>>>> a good venue for opening up these discussions.  Last year, Will
>>>> Schroeder's keynote touched upon the work being done through the
>>>> Insight Journal, which also attempts to address many of these
>>>> shortcomings.  The WSSSPE workshop at SC13 this year has several
>>>> contributions that discuss publishing models, too:
>>>> http://wssspe.researchcomputing.org.uk/contributions/ .
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I really liked the path taken in 2012 where reviews were being asked and openly stored with the paper - a non blind review. I would like to see more of this approach. This is more similar to testing software where someone has to sign on a product.
>>>>>
>>>>> I would suggest some elements that make sense to me to keep publication effective:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. Use github or a similar repository or a wiki to publish SciPy proceedings - this will allow linking to code, video, slides, etc.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2. Emphasize electronic publication over traditional paper formatting. Which can be accomplished using simple RST or MD or similar non demanding non time consuming formatting.
>>>>>
>>>>> 3. Ensure high quality that is accountable by using open non blind review process.
>>>>>
>>>>> Note that the latter review process can continue even after publication and paper submitters may be asked to participate in open review as part of participating in SciPy.
>>>>>
>>>>> There are just a few ideas. I would appreciate a discussion on those issues to help improve SciPy in the future and use its innovative spirit to influence the scientific community in better directions.
>>>>
>>>> Attempting to move the proceedings to a non-traditional journal, or
>>>> even start one, could be a very beneficial both for SciPy the
>>>> conference and the community.  My main reaction to this is that there
>>>> are so many possible partners out there, both within the python/scipy
>>>> community as well as in the broader "open science" or even
>>>> computational science communities, that we would really need to ensure
>>>> we have as many partners in this as possible, which might make it
>>>> broader than we can pull off for 2014 proceedings.
>>>>
>>>> -Matt
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>       Jacob
>>>>>
>>>>> Sent from my iPhone
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers



-- 
sheila at codersquid.com


From jacob.barhak at gmail.com  Thu Oct 31 00:17:21 2013
From: jacob.barhak at gmail.com (Jacob Barhak)
Date: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 23:17:21 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <CAK7W4dGosv1jUmqzOe=sjW0CQx-NvsxScDe=GHDfP58sjSkE3w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
	<CAK7W4dGosv1jUmqzOe=sjW0CQx-NvsxScDe=GHDfP58sjSkE3w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DF928744-B60C-44DD-9CF2-5CC8032A6761@gmail.com>

Hi Sheila,

You mention a few recent sources for publishing externally to SciPy. And you have the same idea as I have of newer publication types and you mention a few examples. 

If such a publication has an added value to github code+paper publication, then it makes sense to channel such an external instrument. An external instrument can offer the following advantages:
- A larger/different base of subscribers for advertising
- Recognition from funding organizations and traditional community
- Improved publication technology
- Access to a certain community of experts for reviewing purposes
- Registration with certain archiving entities that gives the publication an ID such as DOI or PMID
- Advanced technology to store the paper/code

If neither of these or similar advantages are present in the external publisher then sticking with github publication model seems a good idea. Perhaps an external source is not necessary for SciPy - perhaps other advertising methods should work better. 

Never the less, if you consider an external publishing partner, I believe a test is a good idea. And the sooner the better. I agree with Sheila that last minute in bad. 

And note that Partnering for the sake of appearances may be detrimental rather than instrumental. 

And Sheila, thanks for supporting the github review process idea practiced in 2012.

        Jacob

Sent from my iPhone

From sheila at codersquid.com  Thu Oct 31 11:50:02 2013
From: sheila at codersquid.com (sheila miguez)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:50:02 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] Publication and review in SciPy
In-Reply-To: <DF928744-B60C-44DD-9CF2-5CC8032A6761@gmail.com>
References: <A0C16510-2D8C-41C7-9B79-E42357181EF7@gmail.com>
	<CALO3=5F+BVfQGSDYdKD8byfhtbk2zx_3PguJ453jdrqUsRxCDQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<54377B1F-AFFA-4109-AB00-21486064CE55@gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSSCABfPCGU-pP47TYMa2pydx0jjkHuNi2M2WbkfP9FLZQ@mail.gmail.com>
	<B5AC23F1-FC61-47E1-BAE9-AF5D09C6B6BC@gmail.com>
	<CAK7W4dGosv1jUmqzOe=sjW0CQx-NvsxScDe=GHDfP58sjSkE3w@mail.gmail.com>
	<DF928744-B60C-44DD-9CF2-5CC8032A6761@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK7W4dGGteMaZwg49NutfJKAY6fDGN2EfnJmQoyCFPMOf=xzbA@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

On Wed, Oct 30, 2013 at 11:17 PM, Jacob Barhak <jacob.barhak at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi Sheila,
>
> You mention a few recent sources for publishing externally to SciPy. And you
> have the same idea as I have of newer publication types and you mention a
> few examples.
>
> If such a publication has an added value to github code+paper publication,
> then it makes sense to channel such an external instrument. An external
> instrument can offer the following advantages:

For the list, I only have experience to talk about the technology and
DOI depositing.

> - A larger/different base of subscribers for advertising
> - Recognition from funding organizations and traditional community
> - Improved publication technology
> - Access to a certain community of experts for reviewing purposes
> - Registration with certain archiving entities that gives the publication an
> ID such as DOI or PMID

We can also package up materials to store on figshare as a simple way
to get DOIs.

To become a depositor, I think it may be $275/yr, but we would want to
double check with crossref.

http://crossref.org/02publishers/20pub_fees.html

> - Advanced technology to store the paper/code

I think that github is sufficiently advanced to store the materials if
we are not storing more than 2 GB. If we do want to store more than
2GB we should talk to someone at github.

Will we get papers with large datasets? I think we could ask for
sponsors to cover the costs of depositing, or provide infrastructure
for us.

> If neither of these or similar advantages are present in the external
> publisher then sticking with github publication model seems a good idea.

I like planning for the simplest solution, which to me seems to be
github for storing everything including the src for the web page that
would publish the materials online. This is something we can talk
about to see if people agree.

> Perhaps an external source is not necessary for SciPy - perhaps other
> advertising methods should work better.

> Never the less, if you consider an external publishing partner, I believe a
> test is a good idea. And the sooner the better. I agree with Sheila that
> last minute in bad.
>
> And note that Partnering for the sake of appearances may be detrimental
> rather than instrumental.

I am not familiar with prestige and appearance when it comes to this
domain, so I will let others talk about it. I tend to have more
ego-investment in techie stuff.

> And Sheila, thanks for supporting the github review process idea practiced
> in 2012.

I pointed someone from github at this thread, and he wanted to know if
there was anything github could do to support this type of activity.
Do you have anything to suggest?



-- 
sheila at codersquid.com


From james.bergstra at gmail.com  Thu Oct 31 15:19:07 2013
From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:19:07 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating gh-pages
	as master
Message-ID: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>

New to the list: hi people!

In follow up to the other thread (Publication and review in SciPy) I wanted
to suggest a technical twist that would address *part* of the difficulty
getting publications out.

The github PR system is great, but one trouble with it is that it doesn't
go far enough along the path to publication. Namely, merging things to
master doesn't actually publish them in the conventional sense of the word.

However, Github runs Jeckyll-based webpage rendering services so that
individuals and organizations can host things at e.g.

http://scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings

by pushing to gh-pages branch instead of master or master2013 or whatever.

PRs should essentially be operating on that branch, rather than master. PRs
should include a file in the _posts subdirectory, and put supplementary
data (like e.g. the paper source and built PDF) in some other folder that
the webserver can access. That way, when the chair/admin signs off and
merges a PR (a paper) then it's DONE. The website served by github using
Jeckyll is immediately and automatically updated with a new post about the
paper, that post has links to whatever the author wanted: a PDF, a demo,
link to slides, source, etc... in short, it is PUBLISHED, and no one has to
come back and change anything later.

Thoughts?

- James


From andy.terrel at gmail.com  Thu Oct 31 17:24:31 2013
From: andy.terrel at gmail.com (Andy Ray Terrel)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:24:31 -0500
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating
 gh-pages as master
In-Reply-To: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>

Well I'm fine with building a script that grabs the github source and
publishes it on conference.scipy.org.  But we need to create a index
website and build some providence for things to persist over time.

The only thing I don't like about scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings is
that it isn't as stable as conference.scipy.org/proceedings/<year>
(meaning we can't ever move to a new service with the same url if
github pages stops).

James, any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. I haven't
had time to debug the scripts that are there.

-- Andy

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM, James Bergstra
<james.bergstra at gmail.com> wrote:
> New to the list: hi people!
>
> In follow up to the other thread (Publication and review in SciPy) I wanted
> to suggest a technical twist that would address *part* of the difficulty
> getting publications out.
>
> The github PR system is great, but one trouble with it is that it doesn't
> go far enough along the path to publication. Namely, merging things to
> master doesn't actually publish them in the conventional sense of the word.
>
> However, Github runs Jeckyll-based webpage rendering services so that
> individuals and organizations can host things at e.g.
>
> http://scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings
>
> by pushing to gh-pages branch instead of master or master2013 or whatever.
>
> PRs should essentially be operating on that branch, rather than master. PRs
> should include a file in the _posts subdirectory, and put supplementary
> data (like e.g. the paper source and built PDF) in some other folder that
> the webserver can access. That way, when the chair/admin signs off and
> merges a PR (a paper) then it's DONE. The website served by github using
> Jeckyll is immediately and automatically updated with a new post about the
> paper, that post has links to whatever the author wanted: a PDF, a demo,
> link to slides, source, etc... in short, it is PUBLISHED, and no one has to
> come back and change anything later.
>
> Thoughts?
>
> - James
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers


From james.bergstra at gmail.com  Thu Oct 31 18:02:58 2013
From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:02:58 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating
 gh-pages as master
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMwpFYkYrYY0nBtHWrqE0KJmdvCC=WJPPxphMe=-vtoG6gKLyQ@mail.gmail.com>

I can appreciate wanting to use the scipy domain.

Regardless of where the result is hosted, I would like to see the
proceedings (in all its forms) built incrementally as PRs are accepted (no
work left until "the end" to fall on some poor volunteer's head).

If that feels to some people like more of a "journal" publication model,
then fine, that's what I mean. If the organizers don't want to go fully to
the rolling deadline model, and prefer to bundle together all the
submissions and reviews to be at the same time of year, that's OK. I still
think that all of the PRs should be published on a rolling incremental
basis even if they all happen to occur in the span of a few weeks leading
up to the annual conference.

And that's another side-effect I'd like to see: publication *PRE*
conference when people are a-buzz about the happenings.

I'm happy to look at some scripts, but only if they are meant to be used in
more of a rolling / incremental organizational strategy. The model in which
some volunteer has to go back, after all the fun of the conference is over,
with no deadline in sight, and take on the daunting task of building and
publishing scores of potentially mal-formed RST documents using custom
in-house software, running scripts that no one has tested since the year
before... that's not a model I want to support.

Also, I would say let's not wait for a decision regarding DOIs or PMIDs
etc. The Theano paper from 2010 has 100+ citations without any such ID
(thanks to those who uploaded the PDF!). Academics will cite a paper if
they want to; they'll just do more-or-less what the project instructs them
to do, or copy how other people do the citation. Academics will not,
however, cite a paper that they can't read because some thankless volunteer
hasn't gotten around to uploading it.

I would love to be promoting SciPy via citations to hyperopt, for example,
but... it's not happening. Those citations are going to either nowhere, or
possibly to ICML instead. I'm missing out on citations, SciPy is missing
out on citations, it's not good.

- James


On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well I'm fine with building a script that grabs the github source and
> publishes it on conference.scipy.org.  But we need to create a index
> website and build some providence for things to persist over time.
>
> The only thing I don't like about scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings is
> that it isn't as stable as conference.scipy.org/proceedings/<year>
> (meaning we can't ever move to a new service with the same url if
> github pages stops).
>
> James, any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. I haven't
> had time to debug the scripts that are there.
>
> -- Andy
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM, James Bergstra
> <james.bergstra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > New to the list: hi people!
> >
> > In follow up to the other thread (Publication and review in SciPy) I
> wanted
> > to suggest a technical twist that would address *part* of the difficulty
> > getting publications out.
> >
> > The github PR system is great, but one trouble with it is that it doesn't
> > go far enough along the path to publication. Namely, merging things to
> > master doesn't actually publish them in the conventional sense of the
> word.
> >
> > However, Github runs Jeckyll-based webpage rendering services so that
> > individuals and organizations can host things at e.g.
> >
> > http://scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings
> >
> > by pushing to gh-pages branch instead of master or master2013 or
> whatever.
> >
> > PRs should essentially be operating on that branch, rather than master.
> PRs
> > should include a file in the _posts subdirectory, and put supplementary
> > data (like e.g. the paper source and built PDF) in some other folder that
> > the webserver can access. That way, when the chair/admin signs off and
> > merges a PR (a paper) then it's DONE. The website served by github using
> > Jeckyll is immediately and automatically updated with a new post about
> the
> > paper, that post has links to whatever the author wanted: a PDF, a demo,
> > link to slides, source, etc... in short, it is PUBLISHED, and no one has
> to
> > come back and change anything later.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > - James
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>


From kjordahl at enthought.com  Thu Oct 31 18:09:17 2013
From: kjordahl at enthought.com (Kelsey Jordahl)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:09:17 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating
 gh-pages as master
In-Reply-To: <CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABL_0f6OuXtan5mJM8SfZ6Jgd7vkyrzDuTueAN1nojr2JJV9sA@mail.gmail.com>

James,

I love the idea of "continuous publication".  You also have the possibility
of meaningful git tags (e.g. "submitted", "revised", etc.) to have a record
of certain states.

One problem with the idea of pushing everything directly to the gh-pages
branch, though, is that you still need a build step.  I don't think you can
(or want to) require that every author pushes the PDF, etc., along with any
source changes.  But there are ways to automate that build.  Indeed, there
was a web app to build the PDFs last year:
https://stefan.pythonanywhere.com.  I don't know of a system to
automatically push back to the gh-pages
branch, though it must exist.  The biggest example of a dynamic docoment
build system is probably readthedocs.org: you can hook that up to a GitHub
repo (or other source) and have it build the sphinx docs automatically.  I
don't know if sphinx itself is flexible to do the full proceedings build
including PDFs, but I suspect not (easily).

Kelsey



On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:

> Well I'm fine with building a script that grabs the github source and
> publishes it on conference.scipy.org.  But we need to create a index
> website and build some providence for things to persist over time.
>
> The only thing I don't like about scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings is
> that it isn't as stable as conference.scipy.org/proceedings/<year>
> (meaning we can't ever move to a new service with the same url if
> github pages stops).
>
> James, any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. I haven't
> had time to debug the scripts that are there.
>
> -- Andy
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM, James Bergstra
> <james.bergstra at gmail.com> wrote:
> > New to the list: hi people!
> >
> > In follow up to the other thread (Publication and review in SciPy) I
> wanted
> > to suggest a technical twist that would address *part* of the difficulty
> > getting publications out.
> >
> > The github PR system is great, but one trouble with it is that it doesn't
> > go far enough along the path to publication. Namely, merging things to
> > master doesn't actually publish them in the conventional sense of the
> word.
> >
> > However, Github runs Jeckyll-based webpage rendering services so that
> > individuals and organizations can host things at e.g.
> >
> > http://scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings
> >
> > by pushing to gh-pages branch instead of master or master2013 or
> whatever.
> >
> > PRs should essentially be operating on that branch, rather than master.
> PRs
> > should include a file in the _posts subdirectory, and put supplementary
> > data (like e.g. the paper source and built PDF) in some other folder that
> > the webserver can access. That way, when the chair/admin signs off and
> > merges a PR (a paper) then it's DONE. The website served by github using
> > Jeckyll is immediately and automatically updated with a new post about
> the
> > paper, that post has links to whatever the author wanted: a PDF, a demo,
> > link to slides, source, etc... in short, it is PUBLISHED, and no one has
> to
> > come back and change anything later.
> >
> > Thoughts?
> >
> > - James
> > _______________________________________________
> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
> _______________________________________________
> Scipy-organizers mailing list
> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>



-- 
Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
Scientific software developer
Enthought, Inc.
750 Third Avenue (9th floor),
New York, NY 10017
kjordahl at enthought.com
1-973-996-8401
http://www.enthought.com


From zonca at deepspace.ucsb.edu  Thu Oct 31 18:24:49 2013
From: zonca at deepspace.ucsb.edu (Andrea Zonca)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 15:24:49 -0700
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating
 gh-pages as master
In-Reply-To: <CABL_0f6OuXtan5mJM8SfZ6Jgd7vkyrzDuTueAN1nojr2JJV9sA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f6OuXtan5mJM8SfZ6Jgd7vkyrzDuTueAN1nojr2JJV9sA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CADWjrkisdam=As=zrO4KqoHrtimCoM8hKxVq4+XH+8mVjuSaig@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everybody,

On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 3:09 PM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com> wrote:
> I don't know of a system to
> automatically push back to the gh-pages
> branch, though it must exist.

I like to use travis-ci for triggering automatic builds and
deployment, it is a lot more flexible than readthedocs,
See for example how to build and continuously publish a pelican blog:
http://zonca.github.io/2013/09/automatically-build-pelican-and-publish-to-github-pages.html
cheers,
Andrea


From james.bergstra at gmail.com  Thu Oct 31 18:26:22 2013
From: james.bergstra at gmail.com (James Bergstra)
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 18:26:22 -0400
Subject: [Scipy-organizers] twist on github PR approach: treating
 gh-pages as master
In-Reply-To: <CABL_0f6OuXtan5mJM8SfZ6Jgd7vkyrzDuTueAN1nojr2JJV9sA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAMwpFYndiWEw3HAw_iSy=nn5qH8AA7haPqyTbc+EXCMThh6atw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+WonSR58qA-uCYkh_PHsdYrmp4QtJ4J7tadEfw1b89_jToi4g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CABL_0f6OuXtan5mJM8SfZ6Jgd7vkyrzDuTueAN1nojr2JJV9sA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAMwpFYm-ZAoyCo3v4dwp9NkV_B5oTUO9C75QQMkraAaEQmDGEg@mail.gmail.com>

Good points Kelsey, you're right there are various tools for this sort of
thing.

For my part, I'm suspicious of such automatic build systems for latex,
because they seem annoying to use, and fragile to support. Arxiv is
annoying to use for this reason. I actually *was* suggesting that people
put the built PDF in their git project, so it looks *just right* and goes
straight into the master copy without worrying about if the upstream server
has the right latex version & packages installed. My sense is that papers
are typically not that big. And they're never necessarily big. If everyone
in the 2012 conference submitted 3 revisions of the PDF copy that would be
still only be like 100MB.  Anyway, the person merging to master should
collapse the history to remove duplicate binary copies.

I'm not going to argue against using any one of the build tools you
suggested, but I did want to make sure that submitting PDFs is considered
as an option.

There is also the possibility of using an e.g. git-annex server to handle
binary blobs. In principle this could be elegant, but I'm not crystal clear
on how it would work... github conveniently handles authentication.



On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 6:09 PM, Kelsey Jordahl <kjordahl at enthought.com>wrote:

> James,
>
> I love the idea of "continuous publication".  You also have the
> possibility of meaningful git tags (e.g. "submitted", "revised", etc.) to
> have a record of certain states.
>
> One problem with the idea of pushing everything directly to the gh-pages
> branch, though, is that you still need a build step.  I don't think you can
> (or want to) require that every author pushes the PDF, etc., along with any
> source changes.  But there are ways to automate that build.  Indeed, there
> was a web app to build the PDFs last year:
> https://stefan.pythonanywhere.com .  I don't know of a system to
> automatically push back to the gh-pages branch, though it must exist.  The
> biggest example of a dynamic docoment build system is probably
> readthedocs.org: you can hook that up to a GitHub repo (or other source)
> and have it build the sphinx docs automatically.  I don't know if sphinx
> itself is flexible to do the full proceedings build including PDFs, but I
> suspect not (easily).
>
> Kelsey
>
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 5:24 PM, Andy Ray Terrel <andy.terrel at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Well I'm fine with building a script that grabs the github source and
>> publishes it on conference.scipy.org.  But we need to create a index
>> website and build some providence for things to persist over time.
>>
>> The only thing I don't like about scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings is
>> that it isn't as stable as conference.scipy.org/proceedings/<year>
>> (meaning we can't ever move to a new service with the same url if
>> github pages stops).
>>
>> James, any help in this area would be greatly appreciated. I haven't
>> had time to debug the scripts that are there.
>>
>> -- Andy
>>
>> On Thu, Oct 31, 2013 at 2:19 PM, James Bergstra
>> <james.bergstra at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > New to the list: hi people!
>> >
>> > In follow up to the other thread (Publication and review in SciPy) I
>> wanted
>> > to suggest a technical twist that would address *part* of the difficulty
>> > getting publications out.
>> >
>> > The github PR system is great, but one trouble with it is that it
>> doesn't
>> > go far enough along the path to publication. Namely, merging things to
>> > master doesn't actually publish them in the conventional sense of the
>> word.
>> >
>> > However, Github runs Jeckyll-based webpage rendering services so that
>> > individuals and organizations can host things at e.g.
>> >
>> > http://scipy.github.io/scipy_proceedings
>> >
>> > by pushing to gh-pages branch instead of master or master2013 or
>> whatever.
>> >
>> > PRs should essentially be operating on that branch, rather than master.
>> PRs
>> > should include a file in the _posts subdirectory, and put supplementary
>> > data (like e.g. the paper source and built PDF) in some other folder
>> that
>> > the webserver can access. That way, when the chair/admin signs off and
>> > merges a PR (a paper) then it's DONE. The website served by github using
>> > Jeckyll is immediately and automatically updated with a new post about
>> the
>> > paper, that post has links to whatever the author wanted: a PDF, a demo,
>> > link to slides, source, etc... in short, it is PUBLISHED, and no one
>> has to
>> > come back and change anything later.
>> >
>> > Thoughts?
>> >
>> > - James
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> > Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> > http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>> _______________________________________________
>> Scipy-organizers mailing list
>> Scipy-organizers at scipy.org
>> http://mail.scipy.org/mailman/listinfo/scipy-organizers
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Kelsey Jordahl, Ph.D.
> Scientific software developer
> Enthought, Inc.
> 750 Third Avenue (9th floor),
> New York, NY 10017
> kjordahl at enthought.com
> 1-973-996-8401
> http://www.enthought.com
>