Skip to content

Meeting 5

Jump to bottom
Angeline Burrell edited this page Nov 16, 2020 · 1 revision

16 Nov 2020 15:00 GMT, 10:00 EST, 07:00 PST Present: Angeline, Alexa, Mack, [Melissa]

[] = Arrived late

Reviewed assigned tasks

Mack: No tasks completed, will work on them this week. We discussed codes of conduct and decided to move forward on this using the Contributor Covenant as a scaffold.

Kate: Finished good undergraduate draft and sent it out to us for review.

Alexa: No tasks completed, will work on them next week. On a related note, worked with the AGU nomination committee and Angeline to provide nomination letter writing guidelines for general use.

Angeline: Completed all tasks and received a gold star from Alexa ✨ Reviewed the reviewer form with the group, and received feedback on wording. We discussed the potential types of conflict and the right type of wording. This led to a discussion about personal, protected information and how this should be handled that is summarized in its own section. Angeline also added links to the web pages and figured out how to use GitHub pages.

Mel: Read up on GitHub pages, partially cleaned up current markup, and added the existing example letters to the webpage with hover-text.

Personal information

Mack provided feedback from the CEDAR steering committee, which had expressed concern about the handling of personal protected information. Astrid Maute had offered Mack the access to the NCAR lawyers, who may be able to provide guidance. We all thought this was a good idea, but that the personal information shouldn't be a barrier. To ensure this, the submission guidelines should include a plain language list of information that should be redacted. The editor emails should include a rejection form, notifying the submitter that potential personal information had been identified and needed to be redacted before the letter could be reviewed.

Going public

We discussed the best times to go public, given the current status and need to talk to lawyers about handling personal information. We decided that late December or early-January is a good target for attracting reviewers, still, since the project should not linger longer than necessary.

Tasks for next meeting:

  • Angeline - arrange next meeting, write up minutes, revise the for reviewers documents, provide GitHub support, add highlights to bad undergraduate letter.
  • Alexa - Work on the for submitters documents.
  • Kate - Finish good undergraduate recommendation letter and add highlights to it.
  • Mack - Work on the editor email documents, code of conduct, and add highlights to the postdoc letters.
  • Mel - Clean up markup, add any new letters when notified, sort out issue with nav bar, change style of letter display to be more mobile/tablet friendly.

Clone this wiki locally