APE 22 follow-up: Candidates for pyOpenSci trial review period

[pllim]

This has been discussed offline between me and Astropy Editors but in the spirit of transparency, I am going to create a table in this issue listing the currently active applications. As each of them accept or reject this trial period, we collectively need to update this table.

Trial period is as laid out in Step 1 of https://github.com/astropy/astropy-APEs/blob/main/APE22.rst#implementation and https://github.com/astropy/astropy-APEs/blob/main/APE22.rst#the-trial-period .

Package	PR	Submitter	Editor	Agreed to trial period (✔️ or ❌ )
pypeit	#436	@profxj	@hamogu	❓
PyAutoGalaxy	#491	@Jammy2211	@pllim	✔️
PyAutoLens	#492	@Jammy2211	@dhomeier	❓
ZodiPy	#495	@MetinSa	@dhomeier	✔️ pyOpenSci/software-submission#161 – accepted 🎉
Pyxel	#516	@flemmel	❓	❓
martini	#526	@kyleaoman	@hamogu	✔️ pyOpenSci/software-submission#164
Dolphot_LC	#527	@whit5224	❓	✔️ pyOpenSci/software-submission#177
PetroFit	#550	@robelgeda	@dhomeier	✔️ pyOpenSci/software-submission#159

This is a follow up of:

• Affiliated Package: Consolidate with pyOpenSci? astropy-project#334
• APE 24: Astropy Affiliated Packages with pyOpenSci (now APE 22) astropy-APEs#87

[dhomeier]

Editors (fixed ;-) – reviewers are anonymous under the Astropy rules, but would need to waive their anonymity in the new system.

[pllim]

You are correct. Thanks for pointing that out and fixing it!

[kyleaoman]

Happy to give it a go.

[dhomeier]

Thank you @kyleaoman, we will contact the current reviewer for your package to determine the next steps.

Summarising some key changes in the process:

• Double open review instead of single anonymous
• additional listing as a pyOpenSci package
• automatic submission for publication in JOSS
• review under the pyOpenSci guidelines in addition to Astropy-specific requirements such as integration into the Astropy ecosystem
• submission and review in the pyOpenSci submission space