How could the onboarding / package review process be even better?

  • Regarding #2, it’s been previously suggested that we try to diversify the reviewers by having one reviewer focused on usability - likely someone familiar with the field/data but not necessarily an experienced R package developer. This would have the additional benefit of expanding the pool of reviewers. We should probably make more use of the review board so the task of finding such reviewers doesn’t entirely fall on @sckott.
  • Regarding #3, I think once you’re suggesting enough change to necessitate a PR, do a PR. You can always reference it your review (e.g. https://github.com/ropensci/onboarding/issues/20#issuecomment-151892039)
  • As to your PR suggestion, I like it:
    • I don’t think clutter is an issue. RO has nice front-end web pages to display completed packages, and has plenty of deprecated, half-done (including a couple of mine), packages in the repos.
    • “+1” is the flip side of efficiency, and I think efficiency wins.
    • There shouldn’t be a lot of complexity if we ask users to submit by making a PR to onboarding/empty.
    • An additional benefit is that, if changes as a result of the review are done on the same branch, they will be visible in the review.
1 Like