Skip to content

enh(policy): Add discussion about submission volume #357

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from
+42 −1
Open

enh(policy): Add discussion about submission volume #357

Show file tree
Hide file tree
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
11 changes: 10 additions & 1 deletion how-to/author-guide.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -51,7 +51,7 @@ We review packages openly using GitHub Issues.
::::

::::{grid-item}
:::{card} <i class="fa-solid fa-timeline"></i> Review timeline
:::{card} <i class="fa-solid fa-timeline"></i> Review timeline
:link: ../our-process/review-timeline
:link-type: doc
:class-card: left-aligned
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -117,6 +117,15 @@ for pyOpenSci.
as we also want to ensure that everyone working on the project receives full credit
for their effort.

```{note}
**Important**: To ensure quality reviews for all submissions and protect our
volunteer review team, each active submission must have a unique point of contact.
If you are currently the point of contact for another package under review, please
wait until that review is complete before submitting another package.

For more details, see our [submission volume policy](../our-process/policies.html#submission-volume-and-maintainer-overlap).
Copy link
Member

@lwasser lwasser Dec 1, 2025 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@eliotwrobson , actually, this link is breaking CI.

what i suggest instead is to create a target at

policies.html#submission-volume-and-maintainer-overlap
that looks like this

(submission-volumne)=

Then your link here can look like this

[submission volume policy](submission-volume)

  internally linking to #../our-process/policies.html#submission-volume-and-maintainer-overlap; the file exists, but the hash '../our-process/policies.html#submission-volume-and-maintainer-overlap' does not

```

```{note}
If your package is more of a tool to support a specific workflow that
either:
Expand Down
32 changes: 32 additions & 0 deletions our-process/policies.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -26,6 +26,38 @@ needed.
When submitting a package, please make sure that your GitHub notification
settings are setup to notify you when you receive feedback on the review issue.

## Submission volume and maintainer overlap
Copy link
Member

@lwasser lwasser Dec 1, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This looks really good.


To protect our volunteer peer review team and ensure quality reviews for all
packages, we have policies regarding the volume of simultaneous submissions.

### Unique point of contact requirement

Each submission to pyOpenSci should have one unique point of contact per package.
Copy link
Contributor

@sneakers-the-rat sneakers-the-rat Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
Each submission to pyOpenSci should have one unique point of contact per package.
Each submission to pyOpenSci should have one point of contact per package.

super minor thing - using unique twice across these sentences is somewhat redundant and could be confusing: if there can only be one of something in a set, it is by definition unique within that set, so this makes me wonder if the use of unique here is supposed to mean something different than the use of unique in the next sentence.

At any given time, all points of contact across all active submissions (those
under review) should be unique.
Comment on lines +37 to +38
Copy link
Contributor

@sneakers-the-rat sneakers-the-rat Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

the language is a little database-like, like i know what you mean, but maybe a more plain language description is something like "each person listed as a point of contact may have only one submission under review at a time"


This policy ensures that:

- Review feedback receives appropriate attention from maintainers
- Maintainers don't become overwhelmed managing multiple concurrent reviews
- Our volunteer reviewers and editors can focus their efforts effectively
Comment on lines +42 to +44
Copy link
Contributor

@hamogu hamogu Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
- Review feedback receives appropriate attention from maintainers
- Maintainers don't become overwhelmed managing multiple concurrent reviews
- Our volunteer reviewers and editors can focus their efforts effectively
- Review feedback receives appropriate attention from maintainers.
- Maintainers don't become overwhelmed managing multiple concurrent reviews.
- Our volunteer reviewers and editors can focus their efforts effectively.


### Multiple submissions with overlapping maintainer teams

If multiple packages are submitted simultaneously with overlapping maintainer
teams, we will evaluate our volunteer reviewer capacity and may request
staggered submissions to ensure quality review for all packages and to protect
the time and availability of our volunteer editorial team.

### Edge cases and exceptions

We recognize that some situations may warrant exceptions to these guidelines.
For example, two closely related packages that would benefit from review by
the same editorial team may be handled together. We will evaluate edge cases
to this policy as they arise, and decisions will be made by the Editor-in-Chief
based on reviewer capacity and the specific circumstances of the submission.

Comment on lines +53 to +60
Copy link
Contributor

@sneakers-the-rat sneakers-the-rat Dec 2, 2025

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

i sort of think that adding this caveats section here would make it so that one would expect a caveats subsection for every rule that has caveats, rather than having a single caveats section for all policies like "all policies may have exceptions and etc. under the discretion of the editors..." but again extremely minor

## Submitting your package for review in other venues

We recommend submitting your package for review with pyOpenSci before
Expand Down
Loading