the JOSS process is a nice template that could be expanded and potentially "crowdsourced" without causing chaos (by virtue of its items being mostly independent of each other):
https://github.com/openjournals/joss-reviews/issues/27#issue-159802506 --t On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 9:05 AM, Michael Lawrence <[email protected] > wrote: > I have been chipping in here and there, but I'm not sure if I'm > causing more confusion than help. I just select packages that interest > me and contribute bite size pieces, but I would be happy to assume a > more formal role. It takes very little of my time. > > One suggestion is that reviews should be incremental, i.e., provide > obvious feedback first, let the package authors respond, then dig > deeper for more detailed comments. > > Michael > > On Fri, Sep 30, 2016 at 8:49 AM, Kasper Daniel Hansen > <[email protected]> wrote: > > One of the advantages of the Github review process is open review. We > have > > some amount of packages submitted in the last moment (and I am guilty of > > one of these). Is help with the reviews needed? If so, how do we know > > where to concentrate? > > > > Kasper > > > > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] > > > > _______________________________________________ > > [email protected] mailing list > > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > > _______________________________________________ > [email protected] mailing list > https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel > [[alternative HTML version deleted]] _______________________________________________ [email protected] mailing list https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
