Delightful project and Open Science delightful lists #14

Closed
opened 9 months ago by circlebuilder · 4 comments
Owner

Hi there @Venema (goedemiddag vanuit Delft :D)

I am creating this issue in follow-up to your toot yesterday.

This repository is the top-level list of the delightful project. Any other delightful curated list is list here in an ever growing list of entries. The project is quite young, but the intention is that it will become as prominent as the awesome project on Github. The delightful project is arguably more exclusive, as we are only for FOSS, Open Science and Open Data related curated lists :)

Together with @vald_es as co-maintainer I recently started an Open Science list, but I realize it is best to rename it to 'delightful-open-science-support' or something, as its objective is to collect any resource that furthers open science in general, but does not collect open science works / research itself.

It would be wonderful if you would like to start e.g. a 'delightful-open-science-news' curated list. You are also welcome as co-maintainer on the other list, if you want. More hands, less work :)

Hi there @Venema (goedemiddag vanuit Delft :D) I am creating this issue in follow-up to [your toot](https://fediscience.org/@OpenScienceFeed/105390543024781370) yesterday. This repository is the top-level list of the delightful project. Any other delightful curated list is list here in an ever growing list of entries. The project is quite young, but the intention is that it will become as prominent as the awesome project on Github. The delightful project is arguably more exclusive, as we are only for FOSS, Open Science and Open Data related curated lists :) Together with @vald_es as co-maintainer I recently started an [Open Science](https://codeberg.org/teaserbot-labs/delightful-open-science/src/branch/main/README.md) list, but I realize it is best to rename it to 'delightful-open-science-support' or something, as its objective is to collect any resource that furthers open science in general, but does not collect open science works / research itself. It would be wonderful if you would like to start e.g. a 'delightful-open-science-news' curated list. You are also welcome as co-maintainer on the other list, if you want. More hands, less work :)

I lived in Delft during my PhD measuring clouds with the big radar on top of the electral engeneering building. Watched a workshop where Delft announced its open science program. Sounded promissing.

So you are basically recreating Yahoo! and people are supposed to start at the top? Very centralized for a project I found on Mastodon. ;-)

The Open Science Feed is also simply called Open Science and nearly all people seem to get it is about Open Science and that a feed publishing every single piece of open science does not make sense. A possible reason to be more specific would be that Open Science has a number of aspcects.

Open Science Ontology

The above list may not even be comprehensive. Diversity, science communication and citizen science is also often seen as part of the movement. Everyone wants a piece of the cake, as some say open science is science done right and people try to connect their idea of the future of science with the term. Where I wanted to go: the general name only makes sense if we plan to do it all; otherwise it might interfere with future more specific lists or make those harder to find.

My list of news sources is not particularly delightful. So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list.

I lived in Delft during my PhD measuring clouds with the big radar on top of the electral engeneering building. Watched a workshop where Delft announced its open science program. Sounded promissing. So you are basically recreating Yahoo! and people are supposed to start at the top? Very centralized for a project I found on Mastodon. ;-) The Open Science Feed is also simply called Open Science and nearly all people seem to get it is about Open Science and that a feed publishing every single piece of open science does not make sense. A possible reason to be more specific would be that Open Science has a number of aspcects. ![Open Science Ontology](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_science#/media/File:Os_taxonomy.png) The above list may not even be comprehensive. Diversity, science communication and citizen science is also often seen as part of the movement. Everyone wants a piece of the cake, as some say open science is science done right and people try to connect their idea of the future of science with the term. Where I wanted to go: the general name only makes sense if we plan to do it all; otherwise it might interfere with future more specific lists or make those harder to find. My list of news sources is not particularly delightful. So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list.

In case you missed it, I wrote an "issue" yesterday at a hidden place.
https://codeberg.org/yarmo/delightful-databases/issues/11

In case you missed it, I wrote an "issue" yesterday at a hidden place. https://codeberg.org/yarmo/delightful-databases/issues/11
Poster
Owner

So you are basically recreating Yahoo! and people are supposed to start at the top? Very centralized for a project I found on Mastodon. ;-)

Ha ha, well not really. There's no need to start at the top. Each sublist exists on its own, otherwise completely independent of each other. Also they do not need to be on Codeberg, but can be on any code forge anywhere (though it would be nice if Codeberg was chosen, as it is a fitting place to be).

Note that lists do benefit from some common facilities, such as fedi promo and a badge program I intend to roll out (in similar way to how I set this up for awesome-humane-tech).

Nice ontology, that one. The current Open Science list is more about tools, projects, organizations and events. Though the README is still empty, I've started collecting stuff in an issue.

Where I wanted to go: the general name only makes sense if we plan to do it all; otherwise it might interfere with future more specific lists or make those harder to find.

I agree. I created an issue to talk about list structure. We can move the discussion there.

So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list.

I would love to have you have you as a co-maintainer on Open Science. If you agree I'll add you to the team with direct write access. You can PR yourself to the Maintainers section and Contributors doc then.

I will close this issue, and we can continue Open Science list repo.


PS. The 'delightful-databases' list by @yarmo - another Dutch friend, and creator of Keyoxide - is not that hidden to me (I PR'ed a bunch of db's), but it was probably not where you intended to create the issue :D

> So you are basically recreating Yahoo! and people are supposed to start at the top? Very centralized for a project I found on Mastodon. ;-) Ha ha, well not really. There's no need to start at the top. Each sublist exists on its own, otherwise completely independent of each other. Also they do not need to be on Codeberg, but can be on any code forge anywhere (though it would be nice if Codeberg was chosen, as it is a fitting place to be). Note that lists do benefit from some common facilities, such as fedi promo and a [badge program](https://codeberg.org/teaserbot-labs/delightful/issues/11) I intend to roll out (in similar way to how I set this up for [awesome-humane-tech](https://github.com/humanetech-community/awesome-humane-tech)). Nice ontology, that one. The current Open Science list is more about tools, projects, organizations and events. Though the README is still empty, I've started [collecting stuff](https://codeberg.org/teaserbot-labs/delightful-open-science/issues/1) in an issue. > Where I wanted to go: the general name only makes sense if we plan to do it all; otherwise it might interfere with future more specific lists or make those harder to find. I agree. I created [an issue](https://codeberg.org/teaserbot-labs/delightful-open-science/issues/2) to talk about list structure. We can move the discussion there. > So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list. I would love to have you have you as a co-maintainer on Open Science. If you agree I'll add you to the team with direct write access. You can PR yourself to the Maintainers section and Contributors doc then. I will close this issue, and we can continue Open Science list repo. --- PS. The 'delightful-databases' list by @yarmo - another Dutch friend, and creator of [Keyoxide](https://keyoxide.org) - is not that hidden to me (I PR'ed a bunch of db's), but it was probably not where you intended to create the issue :D
circlebuilder closed this issue 9 months ago

I agree. I created an issue to talk about list structure. We can move the discussion there.

Will have a look at the link collection in the first issue and add the recommendations I have made in the past on the Open Science Feed. That could help make a structure.

So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list.

I would love to have you have you as a co-maintainer on Open Science. If you agree I'll add you to the team with direct write access. You can PR yourself to the Maintainers section and Contributors doc then.

Let's try.

PS. The 'delightful-databases' list by @yarmo - another Dutch friend, and creator of Keyoxide - is not that hidden to me (I PR'ed a bunch of db's), but it was probably not where you intended to create the issue :D

Lost in cyber space ....

No idea how that happened. :-)

> I agree. I created [an issue](https://codeberg.org/teaserbot-labs/delightful-open-science/issues/2) to talk about list structure. We can move the discussion there. Will have a look at the link collection in the first issue and add the recommendations I have made in the past on the Open Science Feed. That could help make a structure. > > So maybe it is not a bad idea to simply colloborate on a general open science list. > I would love to have you have you as a co-maintainer on Open Science. If you agree I'll add you to the team with direct write access. You can PR yourself to the Maintainers section and Contributors doc then. Let's try. > PS. The 'delightful-databases' list by @yarmo - another Dutch friend, and creator of [Keyoxide](https://keyoxide.org) - is not that hidden to me (I PR'ed a bunch of db's), but it was probably not where you intended to create the issue :D Lost in cyber space .... No idea how that happened. :-)
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Milestone
No Assignees
2 Participants
Notifications
Due Date

No due date set.

Dependencies

This issue currently doesn't have any dependencies.

Loading…
There is no content yet.