@krzysztof here is my attempt at an updated context: https://github.com/kyleniemeyer/codemeta/blob/patch-2/codemeta.jsonld
Spreadsheet for @kyleniemeyer https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/12HgydAPPl1fUGnKGe5sTbmf5tR9uTeHqAyy2tYgrw8o/edit#gid=137552421
acabunoc @acabunoc gets ready to spam kyle
Lemme see
@mbjones yup - take a look at: https://docs.google.com/document/d/113p7tQz3Pw8wYIzQnSBrCOmGv2LJZ7nBAzKh1ZtG6G4/edit for all the sources for the additional columns from our group
@kyleniemeyer @danielkatz @ashleysa indeed. open to ideas but here's one proposal for you: If no one wants to take on a leadership role in wrangling and seeing it out the door; I'm happy to cover that and play first-author. If someone (cough Kyle) wants to do that I'd love to make them first author, maybe Ashley as second, and propose I go at the end ("senior author"). We order the others by some arbitrary metric, and we say authorship order was determined by "the consensus of the workshop" if we comment on it at all. Does this sound fair?
As I said at the meeting, I think we either should list authors based on contribution (perhaps determined via the general consensus of the participants), or we should alphabetize (other than the lead author), as people who see a citation to the document will assume that we are doing one of these: If the order is alphabetic, it will be assumed that we used alphabetic order, and if the order is anything else, it will be assumed that we ordered according to contribution. (I can't believe I'm writing this badly while listening to a talk on bad writing)
(was trying to fit as many cliches in there as I could)
The final potential authorship is a hybrid - the first set of authors are entered by order of contribution (or order of 'needing' authorship order?) and then the second set is alphabetical. This is actually common in astronomy. Perhaps too complicated in this context. The first set could be folks who 'need' earlier authorship and who actually step-up to ensure the writing itself is completed. Again, that's an option but may be too complicated - though it does provide incentive to not let the paper itself linger now that the enthusiasm of the weekend is over ;)
I also agree that beyond whoever takes the lead being first author (either @cboettig or me, I guess), trying to order based on contribution (or need) becomes tricky and perhaps not fair/equitable. For my own case, other than the coveted lead author position, I don’t think position will matter too much—it’s a paper, and potentially one with good impact.
It's still just a flat list -- the two sets are smushed together like one normal author list -- you determine the order like any other article. It would depend on your community if you knew how to "read" the ordering -- but sounds like most communities here it doesn't matter. But again, don't want to force a crazy idea on anyone.
it currently is failing, seemingly because of a CORS header error on the context file
Lots of people have made lots of different kind of contributions to the paper and broader ideas here. None of us believe these contributions are either exactly equal nor do we believe that they can be meaningfully rank-ordered in a single dimension. Thus I would prefer any decision that does not imply that we believe either of these fictions. I am perfectly fine with a hybrid order that is not alphabetical but also not a strictly ordered list from 1-17.
Sorry, I sent that message before finishing it
... Ok, this is an iOS gitter app problem... What
I don’t think I have anything more to contribute on the authorship discussion :smile:
FYI - saw this on twitter, in case you haven’t seen it before: http://rrr.cs.st-andrews.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/guidelines-software-identification.pdf
Am I misremembering? Are we just going to do this in Rmd?