Roadmap 2024 - Community Input

[ceb8]

At the anual Astropy Coordination Meeting (#349) we will be updating the Astropy Roadmap, both to recognize what progress has been made and to add/revise goals as needed. In aide of this task wer are soliciting community input.

This issue will be open for commenting untill the start of the Astropy Coordination meeting on June 10th.
The current Astropy Roadmap can be viewed here.

Please comment on this issue with the following information:

• Are you suggesting an addition or alteration or removal.
  • If addition: what?
  • If alteration: change in status only, or material change?
  • If removal: due to completion or another reason?
• Justification for suggestion

This community input will be used to draft the next iteration of the Roadmap, after which there will be another opportunity for community comment before official adoption.

[weaverba137]

Alteration: Provide next-generation spectroscopic reduction, analysis, and visualization tools

Change status to green. There has been a lot of progress on this in the last year.

[pllim]

Better understand Astropy user community through a NumPy-like user survey

I haven't seen this in the past year, so Alteration: change to red?

Implement integration testing for core, coordinated, and infrastructure packages.

If things been green for a year, do we remove it? I think this is working well already... @astrofrog ? (Same concept would also apply to "Generate and ingest guides and/or a series" in a different section.)

Implement robust performance benchmark reporting.

We have PR benchmark now (thanks to Mridul Seth) and STScI has revived the classic benchmark (thanks to Zach Burnett), so I think it is Alteration: Change to green?

Increase the learning and mentoring opportunities

Pinging @taldcroft on this one.

Adopt the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct (CoC)

Pinging @hamogu on this one.

Document the process for taking on a formal role in the Astropy project and recruit for unfilled Team positions.

I think the process is documented (after all @ceb8 just self-nominated at astropy/astropy.github.com#589 but recruiting is lacking, so Alteration: change to orange?

[hamogu]

Adopt the NumFOCUS Code of Conduct (CoC)

NumFOCUS is working at snail speed here. (And the recently flared up controversy about NumFOCUS board positions won't help to speed this up.). I suggest waiting...

Better understand Astropy user community through a NumPy-like user survey

We do have the results from OrgMycology. It's not exactly NumPy-like (where users were asked about more technical details like the Python versions they use), but it does give us a better understanding of our community. I suggest "green" and working through the reports we have.

[pllim]

For infrastructure, I propose we add a new item:

• Remove dependence of Codecov for coverage reporting.

Related issues:

• CI: failure of coverage upload doesn't change job status astropy#16379
• Revert splitting out of coverage step OpenAstronomy/github-actions-workflows#206
• Add support for doing code coverage reporting entirely on GitHub OpenAstronomy/github-actions-workflows#189

[weaverba137]

Interesting. Is there a reason to prefer Codecov over Coveralls?

[pllim]

We used to use Coveralls a long time ago. I don't remember why but I think it stopped working at some point for us, and we switched to Codecov. Now Codecov belongs to Sentry.

[weaverba137]

OK, we use Coveralls for DESI and have been for 5+ years. Still seems to work.

[ceb8]

The meeting is starting so I am closing this issue.