Update description while we have chance

[athowes]

Right now we have: "Estimate epidemiological delay distributions for infectious diseases"

On the RHS we have: An R package for estimating epidemiological delay distributions

I'd say "epidemiological delay distributions for infectious diseases" is pretty good / central though it does narrow us more than we actually are (it's not just epidemiological). Also, do we need to say "for infectious diseases"? What about non infectious diseases? Nothing about the methods is infectious specific?

Should we say with brms? I think we should. Maybe "Stan" has more name recognition?

Should we say it's an R package? Perhaps we don't need to say this.

[athowes]

1. What is the domain of the package
2. Should we change the title

@kgostic mentions that the package could also be used for titre data.

• Tools for survival analysis in some sense

@athowes

• Notes that we can create vignettes demonstrating other application areas

In F2F:

• Drop the word infectious diseases
• Include brms
• CRAN doesn't accept "R package" so we can't do that

Two proposed options:

1. Estimate epidemiological delay distributions with brms
2. Extending brms for estimating epidemiological delay distributions

Could also use "models for..." or "tools for...".

[seabbs]

Can you setup a vote @athowes?

[seabbs]

I think my current merging of peoples views is

Estimate epidemiological delay distributions by extending brms

I don't want people to think that this is just using brms as it makes the sell of why use this vs brms directly harder

[athowes]

GH comments doesn't have vote capacity so @seabbs @kgostic @parksw3 please provide ranked choice / thoughts / preferences on the following names:

A. Estimate epidemiological delay distributions with brms B. Extending brms for estimating epidemiological delay distributions C. Estimate epidemiological delay distributions by extending brms

[athowes]

For me I'm not convinced it's required to say "extending" (see e.g. another brms extension package). Seems trivial it's an extension else why would we have written a whole package.

So for that reason my preference is with A.

If we want to use "extending" then B reads more naturally than C. So I'm pretty indifferent between B and C.

[seabbs]

you can do it with tapback responses

[parksw3]

I agree B reads better than C. And A reads better than B. So I like A.

By the way, here's a package that refers to Stan in the title and in the description they write "in Stan via brms". This made me wonder if we should put stan vs brms in the title.

https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/flocker/index.html

[seabbs]

Okay lets go with A then as that seems like the group decision? I would prefer not stan as I have had direct feedback that its a negative but I don't feel that strongly

[parksw3]

sounds good

[jamesmbaazam]

I missed out on this conversation but I would have suggested something like "Estimate epidemiological delay distributions using Bayesian Multilevel Models" instead of brms because the current suggestions focus on the engine, which could be swapped out.

[athowes]

That's fair.

We thought that "Bayesian" could be intimidating.

I think given where the package is now it's quite tightly woven into using brms and I'm not sure that it could be swapped out.