This is a great idea, Ryan! Let's do that. If the core agrees, we could start here, composing a list of users for each team, and ask them if they want to do that.

Going by contributions/conversations I can remember and a bit of git-log grepping, here's a first attempt. I'm sure I'm missing others, so please add to the list.

As each team identifies other bioconda members with similar expertise they could grow their team to help spread the work.

Anyone listed here so far interested in being on an expert team? It would mean monitoring your email for notifications when someone needs help with your area of expertise, and helping them solve the issue.

@daler thanks for the effort! yes, I am in.

not sure if I am really considable as a 'perl-expert' since I 'chose' accidentially the update of bioperl to v1.7+ as my bioconda intro... kept me busy for more than a week now since this required an immense dependency update. still not done.. :/

but since I had to work around a few quirks, you can ping me if needed for perl-questions.

btw: avoid perl .. ;-)

Likewise, I'm not sure I'd consider myself an expert on any or all of those, but I'm happy to contribute and help.

Thanks @dyusuf @martin-mann @acaprez!

I'm in. Always glad to be a part of bioconda. ;-)

I'm not an expert but I'll be willing to help in things like OS X

Ouha ... really old thread.
I miss this mention. I will be glad to be part of the R team if bring my modest contribution (and sure, learn stuff)

@lecorguille cool I added you.

@bioconda/all happy new year! Anyone wants to join one of the mentioned teams for 2018 and beyond? :)

I added also a new group for haskell and added @eggzilla to it :)

@bgruening I'm happy to join the r and osx teams. :)

Any further thoughts on the list of topics? One thing that crossed my mind is JavaScript/node for stuff like bionode, but people more deeply involved might have a better idea of what is needed...

@asntech thanks I have added you.
@tiagoantao I know that a lot of node stuff was added to conda-forge, so I guess with the first JS packages popping up here, this makes a lot of sense. We probably also need a rust team. I will wait for @johanneskoester who has contributed a few rust packages to comment on this.

Happy new year @bgruening! Could I please be added to the R team?

@jdblischak awesome, added you!

I'd be happy to join the lib team and help out.

@acaprez done - thanks!

I can help out in lib and r.

@bgruening a rust team would indeed be reasonable. For now, I don't think there is so much out there yet (mainly my own stuff), but this will for sure increase.

@cbrueffer add you, thanks a lot!
@johanneskoester created and added you :)

@bgruening I'm happy to help with gcc/lib

@bgruening I'm not very experienced with it, but working on some Rust stuff. So feel free to also add me in there.

@dlaehnemann, @daler done! Thanks a lot!

@bgruening I have added @dlaehnemann to the rust team. Did you accidentally add yourself?

@bgruening I am sorry, but I have to withdraw my perl-team membership, since I wont have time within the next months. When things are back to normal I will let you know!
Thanks,
Martin

I'll be happy to help with gcc/lib, build and osx.

The list of help options should probably be somewhere prominent, such as the PR template and the package-build-howto.

Maybe another team @bioconda/review ?

@martin-mann I removed you from the group. Thanks for your help!
@epruesse added you.
@johanneskoester I might help with rust as well if it is low level :)

How should be part of @bioconda/review? I like the idea, but it is not clear when to call this group and how should be part of it? We do not have a strict guideline to wait for reviews afaik.

@bgruening I though there used to be the idea that if you were submitting a brand new recipe that the core team should give it a thumbs up before merging. I imagine a /review team could serve that purpose (for new recipes that are already passing tests).

How should be part of @bioconda/review?

I'd start with those that do the reviews and merges most of the times, plus maybe a few volunteers.

I like the idea, but it is not clear when to call this group and how should be part of it?

It would be the group to ping when a recipe is ready for review & merge. It's easier on the new folk than pinging core, and I presume it's easier on you not to have to constantly monitor the PRs for ones that are building ok.

We do not have a strict guideline to wait for reviews afaik.

We claimed in the paper that we enforce a 4-eyes process, and as Bioconda's membership grows, we should move toward a setup where not everyone can just merge themselves. => The members of that group should at some point become the only ones with merge privileges.

We do not have a strict guideline to wait for reviews afaik.

I would be very much in favor to make reviews mandatory for every merge. Even for stupidly simple version bumps -- typos or forgotten build number resets and such can always happen.
If one wants to argue this would needlessly slow down package releases, I'd counter that rarely none of those lovely "blazing-fast-never-sleeping-maniacs" are around 😉.

I think having a @bioconda/review might be a good idea, just to have the ability to somehow ping people for a review. The only downside I see is that, IIRC, there is no possibility to "hop-onto/hop-off of" GitHub teams easily. Meaning, it would be nice to have the possibility to join a team, esp. @bioconda/review, only temporarily when one has a bit time to spare (and doesn't have to bug anyone with appropriate permissions on every join/leave).

@bgruening: I can help with anything Python or Conda (and generally Python packaging related), so @bioconda/build would fit. If you don't want to create such a team due to redundancy, I would also be willing to pledge to behave if I'd be added to @bioconda/core. If created, happy to join @bioconda/review as well.

-1 on mandatory reviews. My experience with this has been that it overwhelms the team doing reviews and leads to slow turn around times. conda-forge processes are currently similar to this; my recent PRs there have gotten 3+ days to review and merge for simple version bumps. Even the current slow Travis build times make it hard to respond to issues in tools I'm maintaining that require updating or fixing packages, so I'd find it hard to have a slower process.

My experience with this has been that it overwhelms the team doing reviews and leads to slow turn around times.

Possible, sure. Although I see Bioconda less susceptible to that than conda-forge since we have that unified repository here. So the probability someone sees/reviews a PR should be higher compared to single feedstocks on conda-forge. But thanks for sharing that concern!

Let's start by having a review team and seeing how long it takes for reviews to be done in the worst case. Turnaround time and stability are competing interests, and that discussion is out of scope here.

That said... I'm using Bioconda to provision the tools I need in "production". In that environment I can easily live with a week's turnaround time, but breakage (networkx...grrr) is a problem. IIRC Bioconda policy is releases only, not pre-releases or alphas, for that exact reason. The only time I really need something to get uploaded quickly is to fix breakage, which I'd much prefer not to have happened in the first place. Hence: +1 for mandatory reviews.

Lets move the discussion about mandatory review into a new thread (@epruesse, @mbargull do you want to do this?).

@mbargull #7293 :) and I added you to a few groups.

I created also a review team and added @mbargull, @epruesse and myself to it.
There is also now a build-system team for problems with travis and bioconda-utils.

I am happy to be added to review and osx.

@druvus added you thanks a lot!

Lets more the discussion about mandatory review into a new thread (@epruesse, @mbargull do you want to do this?).

Good idea, done as #7294.

@mbargull #7293 :) and I added you to a few groups.

I created also a review team and added @mbargull, @epruesse and myself to it.
There is also now a build-system team for problems with travis and bioconda-utils.

Thank you very much!

I agree that a review team would be useful, feel free to add me.

Done! :) Thanks @cbrueffer!

I would like to be added to review, perl and R.

@rvalieris done! Thanks!

I would like to be added to review and R teams.

FYI for everyone: You can also hit the "Request to join" button on any existing team's member page, e.g., https://github.com/orgs/bioconda/teams/review/members, if you would like to join that team.

@souravsingh added you!

We do have those teams now and they are super useful. conda-forge also has them so I think we can close this issue. The only thing that is missing is that people make use of this regularly. I have the impression this is under-used :)

But this is an other problem :)