some issues about the abstract and Sections 1-4

mbobra commented 5 years ago

Here are some issues about the abstract and Sections 1-4:

[ ] @Cadair will write some words about the small grant from NumFOCUS.
[x] We all need to decide whether we want to deposit our SEPs in Zenodo (x/ref sunpy/sunpy-SEP#33). My vote is yes.
[x] We need to come up with a convention for referring to the sunpy core package -- as SunPy or sunpy -- and similarly for the other packages we reference.
[x] @ehsteve Please let me know if the mission statement is correct. Otherwise, can you please let me know exactly what text to use?
[x] @nabobalis Please write a caption for Figure 1. We should figure out the answers to the following questions:
[ ] Should we cite all previous versions of SunPy released on Zenodo? If we do this, they will all show up in ADS.
[ ] Should the introduction include some words on what constitutes v1.0? (Or reference Section 11)?
[x] Should we mention that we are collaborating with other heliophysics python developers and agreed to the Heliopython Standards?

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Just do small PRs to fix these issues individually.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

I'll take on issue number 2.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Decision is sunpy for the package and SunPy for the project.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Cite the Zenodo 1.0 release (and the bug fix) and then the zenodo all for all other releases. @Cadair can cite others if he wants.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

@Cadair to add words about what constitutes v1.0.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

I will add a citation to the PyHC standards document.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Relooked at the mission statement text and it looks fine @mbobra

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Looks like astropy just uploads each APE to zenodo by hand to get their DOI. I'll do the same for us.

ehsteve commented 5 years ago

Moved open issues from this into individual issues (#79, #80, #81, #82).

sunpy / sunpy-1.0-paper