Close issues that have been addressed

[Benjamin-Lee]

If anyone wants to volunteer for this task, it'll definitely help clarify what still needs to be addressed in the manuscript.

If no one is able to, I will get on it as soon as I get a chance, but I'm a bit swamped with summer position and fellowship applications right now (and going on a weeklong cruise starting Sunday).

[evancofer]

I'd love to work on this, but I think I am going to be MIA until I am finished with candidacy exams at the end of the month.

[AlexanderTitus]

I can take this this weekend.

[Benjamin-Lee]

Thanks!

[AlexanderTitus]

Turns out this is not as straight forward as I had planned. I am working through this, but would everyone look to the issues that you personally opened and help decide if your issue has been addressed?

This is highly relevant to all the tip suggestions. Many of these tips are addressed in the 10 umbrella tips, but it would be good for the issue author to decide if their suggestion has been adequately addressed.

[Benjamin-Lee]

I'm back! I'll work on this also over the next few days as well. Thanks @AlexanderTitus for your help.

[AlexanderTitus]

Where do we stand on the overall progress? And what’s the timeline for submission?

[Benjamin-Lee]

Where do we stand on the overall progress?

Right now, we have merged drafts of the introduction and tips 1, 2, 4, 6, 7, 9 and 10 with a PR'ed draft of 3 and a WIP draft of 10. Only tips 5 (Choose an appropriate neural network architecture and data representation) and 8 (Do not necessarily consider a DL model as a black box) and the conclusion are empty with no progress.

And what’s the timeline for submission? I don't have a specific timeline in mind. We've slowed down recently (which is ok, as the amount of places to work on dwindles) but I do want to make sure we're making steady progress. I envision the workflow for submission preparation as follows (please feel free to comment if you have other ideas):

1. Complete drafts of the remaining sections
2. Polishing, editing, etc. If you're happy with the state of the draft, PR yes to the "Final approval" and "Accountable" columns of contributors.md. If all the columns have "Yes" in them (i.e. qualification for authorship), PR your details to metadata.yaml.
3. For those who don't meet the criteria (either didn't do all of the tasks or are unreachable to verify their accountability or approval), we will add their information to the acknowledgements.
4. Submit to the journal

[AlexanderTitus]

Agree with that process.

I suggest deciding on a cadence to finish the last parts would be good so the process doesn't trail on too long as people start to wrap up sections.

[agitter]

I looked at updates in the wrong order, so my comments in #130 would be better discussed here. I agree with your ordered steps to finish this. I also suggest waiting to approve the final version until we have a final draft though.

[Benjamin-Lee]

Quoting @agitter (for those looking at this thread later):

@Benjamin-Lee do you want contributors/authors to start adding themselves to metadata.yaml now or after the ordering has been determined? The order in this file will be the order in the generated HTML and PDF.

To follow up, I'm not questioning whether @AlexanderTitus should be an author. His contributions to the project are quite clear. The question was only about the timing of listing authors.

I think that it's ok for people to add themselves to metadata.yaml if they have already met the other requirements, with the stipulation being that the ordering in metadata.yaml is not reflective of final authorship order, only of the chronological order in which the file was created. To that end, I'm going to PR comment lines in metadata.yaml clearly stating that and add some info the CONTRIBUTING.md making this process clear.

[Benjamin-Lee]

With respect to the timeline, I'm going to pull some numbers out of thin air, but let's target having something on the page for each of the sections by 3/1. That means finishing the PRs of the drafts in progress as well as drafts of the tips 5 and 8.

Can one (or more!) of @tbrittoborges, @betsig, or @evancofer take on tip 8 (interpretability)? For tip 5 (architecture), I can take the lead on that one unless someone else (@chevrm?) is interested.

Let's aim to have editing done by 3/14 for initial submission (in celebration if Pi day).

[alxndrkalinin]

@Benjamin-Lee I realized I've never checked out this project and just saw this repo (sorry, your email got lost in a pile..), and it seems like I'm late to the party, but if there are still sections that need to be drafted and/or reviewed, I'd love to contribute!

[Benjamin-Lee]

@alxndrkalinin It's never too late! I just gave you collaborator status, so feel free to review PRs, submit edits to existing tips, write drafts for any empty sections, or even propose new tips if you think we've missed anything.

[alxndrkalinin]

Perfect, thanks! I'll go over previous discussions and will try to make some suggestions/PRs/reviews by the next week.

[fmaguire]

So I just went through our extant issues, I've closed any that I thought looked covered and assigned any still open ones to the most relevant project. A lot of remaining open issues can be resolved with a sentence or two being added to the relevant text, people can use the project tab to find these.

There were a couple I couldn't assign:

• General comments #138 #74
• General References #110 #101 #59
• Non-obvious Tip Assignment #63 #5

[Benjamin-Lee]

Thanks @fmaguire! This really helps keep the project moving along.