R-Ladies Bioconductor collaboration post draft

[jananiravi]

for proof, cc: @shannonpileggi @yabellini @drmowinckels

[yabellini]

I don't know if we agree on this text here to be published, but the big issue here is that Bioconductor already posted.

I dislike that Bioconductor, which has people paid to work for them, is imposing its agenda on a completely 100% volunteer organization like R-Ladies.

Even if we agree on the text, they shouldn't publish it before us.

I have some questions and some change requests.

[jananiravi]

I don't know if we agree on this text here to be published, but the big issue here is that Bioconductor already posted.

I dislike that Bioconductor, which has people paid to work for them, is imposing its agenda on a completely 100% volunteer organization like R-Ladies.

Even if we agree on the text, they should publish it before us.

I have some questions and some requests for change.

Sorry you feel this way, Yani. Bioconductor is not pushing anything on to R-Ladies. Shannon (on behalf of RL) and folks from the Bioconductor community advisory board have been adding suggestions to the doc, and we have been going back and forth. We got through a few changes and discussions on the doc and finalized a few days ago.

Since the BioC conference is this week (as I had mentioned), we were trying to finalize once @shannonpileggi approved all the comments and she gave an OK for a PR (via slack). I misunderstood and thought that the RLadies leadership team approved it for publishing. Since the Bioconductor community manager (@mblue9) is traveling internationally to bioc, she posted it yesterday. No other reason than that. If there is any concern, I can ask bioconductor to retract and repost. I didn't think there was any concern based on the conversation.

Once again, I apologize for any confusion on my part. We meant to get your feedback and thoughts (which I thought we did). We only moved forward following that. It makes sense to have links from both -- and I requested feedback on that, too. Happy to change whatever needs to be changed. Let us know what you all think.

[yabellini]

@shannonpileggi is a member of the R-Ladies Leadership, so she can approve a blog post, and I support her decision. She took charge of this matter to move forward, and I am very grateful for that.

I still think that both organizations should publish the blog post simultaneously, and we should agree on how to spread the word about it.

I understand the urgency of the timing of the conference, but this agreement was not just for this particular conference.
In any case, I am giving my opinion here because my review was requested in this PR.

[shannonpileggi]

Sorry for the confusion I introduced! @jananiravi what I did not communicate clearly is that we view a PR as a way for others to chime in and give feedback prior to publishing; not that a PR submission is approval of the final piece. Sorry for not being clear.

[jananiravi]

Not a problem, Shannon. I didn't mean to rush or complicate anything, either. I just misunderstood -- should have asked to clarify (I was too preoccupied to notice). I am also looping in @mblue9 (Maria Doyle) so we are on the same page. I'm glad we cleared the air because I don't want to start what might be amazing for both organizations on the wrong foot. Thanks for understanding. For now, we can edit the post here and revise the Bioconductor post, too. I shared our handles on the platforms. We can retract and repost those, too, as needed. [I will take a look at this tomorrow after my proposal deadline.]

[mblue9]

Hi all,

I apologise for the confusion caused by the premature posting of the blog. We misunderstood and thought it was approved. I’ll work on making the necessary edits to both the blog post and the working group description to ensure they align with R-Ladies' feedback.

I've opened PRs to incorporate the feedback:

Blog post PR: Bioconductor/biocblog#66
Working group page PR: Bioconductor/BiocWorkingGroups#45

Thanks for your understanding, and I look forward to working with you further.

[yabellini]

Finally, I found the time to go through this blog post. I made some suggestions for change.

[jananiravi]

Appreciate these quick changes, @mblue9. @shannonpileggi @yabellini et al., please let us know if these most recent changes look good to you and what's the appropriate plan/timeline to proceed with the blog post -- we can synchronize our release dates based on feasibility from both sides. Thanks again!

[jananiravi]

@shannonpileggi @yabellini & others: please let us know if these changes look OK. which publish date/week would work best for your R-Ladies blog schedule? Thanks!

And, happy new year! 🎉

[yabellini]

Hi, Happy New Year!
Ok, with those changes.
I have already applied them. About the date, @rladies/website, when is it good to publish this blog?

[yabellini]

@jananiravi @mblue9 this is ready to be published. What we need to do now is change the date in the file's name and on the YAML. We proposed as date this Friday, January 17, 2025. If you can't make the changes by that date, we propose Wednesday, January 22. @jananiravi, you created the PR. Can you please make those changes? Then ping me, and I can merge it.

[jananiravi]

Changed folder name and yaml date "to rendered date" to keep it current. If we are sure of Jan 29, I can change the yaml date to reflect the folder date, too.

thanks!

[yabellini]

I'm sorry I don't understand what do you mean.

I need you to choose a date in the future so I can merge this pull request in that date and this blog post is published.

I want you to choose that date because I don't know when you will have time to do this changes.

I will be out of office since Feb 10 to March 5, so please don't choose any of those dates because the document will be out of data again.

Until you don't do that I can't merge this PR and the blog post will no be published.

[jananiravi]

The date has been changed to "2025-01-29" instead of the autorendered "sys.time". I hope everything else looks right and is ready for publication. Thanks!

[yabellini]

@jananiravi, this looks great! Thank you so much. I will merge on Wednesday 🙏

[yabellini]

@drmowinckels @rladies/website @SoyAndrea @cosimameyer I don't see a preview in this PR (it looks like there is not a build), so I cloned the repo and built the website locally, but I don't see this post in blog or news, so I don't know how to check if the build is correct. I don't want to merge the PR if I'm not sure this looks ok and doesn't break anything.

The date for publication is today. Can anyone help me? Thanks!

[yabellini]

@jananiravi @mblue9 Unfortunately, the preview build is not working, and when I clone the repo and build the site locally, this post is not shown on the blog or the news. I don't know what is happening, but I need someone on the website team to check this before merging.

If this doesn't happen today, we will change the date to when we are sure the PR is ok and can be merged. Sorry for this inconvenience. I will be ping you when this happens.

[mblue9]

No worries @yabellini, thanks for your efforts!

[jananiravi]

No issues, indeed! Let us know, and we can change the date as needed. Thanks for the heads up -- we will stay tuned!

[drmowinckels]

looks good, just changing the file to simple markdown