Am 01.11.2016 um 21:06 schrieb Dave Clements:
Hi Hans-Rudolf, Maria, all
The GOBLET meeting starts next Monday, which means we need to get this settled as soon as possible. So far their hasn't been much discussion, which means Hans-Rudolf and I get what we (/HRH+DC)/ want. I'd rather present what we (/GTN/) want. Which means we need your input now.
If there's no discussion in the next 24 hours we'll go with what we have, which is below
*1. Enable/Host online discussion about bioinformatics training.*
/Biostar or Github recommended./ (I lean towards Biostar-like solutions.)
1. Biostar 2. Github 3. ML
*2. Embrace the Carpentry model for training material and training datasets*
/Yes. Maybe even "Hell yes!"/
HRH suggests pushing for this now, instead of proposing GTN try this for a year and report.
/Maria, I suggest you push for whichever option you think they will receive better at the time (or suggest both as options)./
Yes please, https://github.com/bgruening/training-material is trying to follow the Carpentry model already and we will make sure this is in a reasonable state to the end of the year.
*3. We prepare short presentations on whatever points we decide to push. *
Gosh this seemed like a good idea when it's implementation was a week in the future.
Depending on discussion in the next day, /- I'll start working with Björn and Bérénice (and possibly HRH) tomorrow to get these done./
*4. Should GTN stay in GOBLET?*
HRH asks two questions.
Has GOBLET been in contact with GTN?
They are in contact with me. I forward what I think are the interesting emails on to the Galaxy-Training list. Most of the significant ones were about workshops, either sponsored by GOBLET or relevant to GOBLET membership. There were also 2 editions of the new GOBLET Newsletter. Several of the events were directly relevant to GTN membership.
I was also invited to consider running for a GOBLET office. I declined this as the offer came during a month when I was swamped, and trying to avoid commitments.
What I haven't seen, outside of the events, is a call to action, such as:
- advertise your event through GOBLET channels.
- Share you materials through GOBLET.
and so on. (Both those things are available, I just don't do them. )
I want to know what is happing with this money
My memory is that this is covered in detail at the GOBLET meeting. I suspect that this is already published online, and if it's not, I bet we could get them do it pretty easily.
My Proposal: /1. GTN stays in GOBLET for another year./
They are also trying to find a spot next to Carpentry, ELIXIR training and GTN. -> tess ...
/2. We let them know that we discuss this value proposition every year./
And let's ask them about the money and how this is spend.
> > 1. Enable/Host online discussion about bioinformatics training. > > They could use the BioStar platform, and this would give all bioinformatics trainers a platform to discuss questions. I think BioStar has been a huge win for the Galaxy community. +1 Yes, any kind of discussion forum would be nice….(see also point 2 ) > 2. Embrace the Carpentry model for training material and training datasets > > Software and Data Carpentry put all their training materials in GitHub where the trainer community can (and does) update the materials. The Galaxy training materials hackathon earlier this month made significant progress on this very approach. and the nice thing about GitHub: it can also be used as a discussion forum (see point 1 ) > Open Questions: > > A) Do we as a community believe that this is a worthwhile approach for training materials? > > I'm pretty sure I speak for the Galaxy team when I say that we believe it is. How do GTN members (and anyone on this mailing list) feel? There was a lot of community participation in this month's contribution fest. +1 > B) If we think it's a good approach, how can we argue it's good for GOBLET as well? > > Something we could propose that gets GOBLET membership thinking, and doesn't require them to actually do anything until the following year: > > Propose that GTN be a test case for this approach, and that we present our experience and whatever best practices we've learned at the 2017 GOBLET meeting. why wait till 2017? I think we can already show now that this approach works. > 3. We prepare short presentations on whatever points we decide to push. > > Maria could show these when making presenting GTN's arguments. They would need to be short. > > I could create one for the forum suggestion, Björn, Bérenice, and myself could create one for the training materials proposal. +1 > 4. Should GTN stay in GOBLET? > > We discussed this last year and decided to give it another year, which is now almost done. > > Something that was supposed to happen, but that mostly did not, is that I would be a lot more active in GOBLET. Besides passing on emails to this list, I don't think I did this. So, 2016 may or may not have been our year to discover the greatness of GOBLET, but given my inactivity, we just don't know. Well, we can ask the other way round as well: Has GOBLET been in contact with GTN? > GOBLET still strikes me as having great potential that it just hasn't realized yet. +1 > The yearly membership is €250. Last year this was paid by the Galaxy Community Fund. If this group decides we should stay in GOBLET then I'll present a funding request to them for 2017. I don’t want to debate whether 250 Euro is a lot of money or not. I want to know what is happing with this money > No matter what we decide we should let GOBLET know that we had this discussion, and what points we came up with. +1 Hans-Rudolf
Please keep all replies on the list by using "reply all" in your mail client. To manage your subscriptions to this and other Galaxy lists, please use the interface at: https://lists.galaxyproject.org/
To search Galaxy mailing lists use the unified search at: http://galaxyproject.org/search/mailinglists/