We do have repositories named examples and sandbox in our organisation. I would like do add oemof_ because clones or imports would look more specific.

from sandbox import something vs. from oemof_sandbox import something

And if you clone the examples of oemof the folder name would be rather oemof_examples than just examples.

I would not do this for the feedinlib or the demandlib because these names are already quite specific.

@oemof
For the introduction of the open data base that Martin is creating and the glossary that was started in the openmod wilki we plan a workshop on the tuesday before the enviroinfo conference (13.09.2016)
from 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.
If you have objections to it please let us know till Friday evening.

• Institutions (including logos)
• People involved
• ...

While working on the open_eGo / oedb licence concept I had a look at the oemof licence and its application in the code:

As you know it is published under GPL-3.0. -> TLDR

Because your LICENCE is just a copy of the "original" some of the required information are not included yet! Here is the full list:

You Must:

• Include Original (Describes whether copies of the original software or instructions to obtain copies must be distributed with the software.)
• State Changes (Stating significant changes made to software.)
• Disclosure Source (All code linked with GPL 3.0 source code must be disclosed under a GPL 3.0 compatible license.)
• Include License (Including the full text of license in modified software.)
• Include Copyright (Describes whether the original copyright must be retained.)
• Include Install Instruction (If the software is part of a consumer device, you must include the installation information necessary to modify and reinstall the software.)

To conclude, there is no general author defined and should be stated here
Authors I found: no author, author = u'oemof-Team', author='oemof developing group', author: uwe
Following the licence I will have to list all stated authors ;)

Feel free to check the boxes if you think it's done!

Hi everybody,

I will be absent from the development process (except for the next dev meeting and bugfixes on my way) until September since I want to focus on other things and have removed myself from all groups except "oemof developer group". This means that I will NOT read and react on github messages except for the repository "organisation".

But my open PRs with @henhuy will be finished and I am always reacheable via e-mail, telephone and other channels ;-)

I think version 0.2 is a good milestone to be reached!

Cheers
Cord

I know that oemof is not primarily using a database, but you know there is a database in the OpenEnergyPlatform called oedb.

We developed and updated the Database Rules that can be reviewed and commented here:
http://wiki.openmod-initiative.org/wiki/DatabaseRules#Geografic_Data

A book about oemof was published in the end of 2018.

In the beginning, the author asked me to make a review on this book. I started with the review but I stopped after a while due to the following reasons:

• I did not agree with the didactic structure (my opinion!)

  • in my opinion, the focus was too much on inner core functions, even developer do not need to understand (except core developer).
  • in my opinion, there was too much code copied into the book without further (enlightening) information.
  • in my opinion, it would be better to show a well formatted equation than the full code of the equation in reStructuredText (rst). We write the equations in rst to be interpreted by sphinx because we want the user to see a formatted equation.
  • in my opinion, there was too much code copied in the book without a proper explanation, that makes it easier to understand than just scrolling through the code on github.

• I found so much errors that it became very time-consuming.

It seems to me that the author does not know oemof very well, so I made the suggestion to work closer together with the community. In my opinion, a review was not the right way to improve the text, so I suggested a conceptional cooperation. The author declined that and went on on her own.

Most of the problems described above are still valid in the final version. Here are some...

• there are more than 7 pages explaining the groupings function, even though understanding the groupings is not needed to model with oemof.solph (and it is not explained correctly but reproduces the docstrings).
• there are more than 5 (confuse) pages on decorators, even though decorators are not needed to model with oemof.solph (I could continue this list)
• There is a lot of code/docstrings copied from the documentation or the code base (docstring) with the disadvantage that some bugs that are already fixed in the code are still in the book. Furthermore, the docstrings are not formatted (as they are in our documentation) but presented in source code.
• Reading the book I got the impression that the network classes are the base to create a solph model but solph user should use the solph classes as explained in our examples.
• The examples in the end of the book are just copied without further explanation.
• Some code examples are from oemof v0.1.0, some from oemof v0.2.0 but v0.3.0 will be released in spring, for example, with a revised Storage (which is already different to the one in the book).
• ....

We warned the author that the oemof project is in the beginning (3 years old, at the beginning of the book project) and will have a lot of changes.
We were open but had some doubts that a book might be the right media for such a changeable project. I tried to support the book in the beginning(!) even though I thought that improving the documentation would bring more support to the community (but maybe less credits to the author).

I come to my personal conclusion that the book is not up to date, does not have an
additional value, has some errors and a structure that does not help to understand oemof.

@oemof/oemof-developer-group
This is my very personal view on this issue but I think we should write an announcement, that this book does not have to do anything with us and that the documentation is the saver and more up to date source to learn about oemof.

This issue continues the session and plenum discussions at the 2019 May meeting in Oldenburg (https://github.com/oemof/organisation/wiki/Meeting-May-2019), where we had the following results:

• There are currently requests for paid support.
• This is seen as a good way to help oemof.
• Such cases should be communicated with the oemof-dev-community, so that nobody feels passed over.
• Next dev meeting: jnnr gives report of first paid support project
• We can find ways how these paid projects can benefit the sustainable development of oemof. The money earned can e.g. help employing someone that takes care about some coordinative tasks like the community support or website.
• If requests increase in the future, the message could first go to those who offer paid support,
  then such requests can be distributed
• A short text and an email address on the website can be set up

I would suggest to replace [email protected] by [email protected]

Add new/adapt pages on oemof's website:

• Publications
  • Articles
  • Presentations
• Applications
  • Active projects (projects arround oemof by different people/institutions e.g. oemof heat, ...)
  • Existing publications (reegis, renpassG!S, HESYSOPT, ...)

From @Ludee on April 4, 2016 11:45

What is your opinion on the "decision making rules"?
https://github.com/oemof/oemof/wiki/Rules-for-decision-making

Does it work? Improvements?
How does the decision documentation work? Wiki pages?
Do we have an "example decision", that shows the entire process?

Copied from original issue: oemof/oemof#128

I just realized that we do not have teams in this repository. This however is sometimes diffucult if the decision process should be applied...

I think it would be good to have some like: website etc....

Based on the discussions in #7 and https://github.com/simnh/addressing_challenges_oemof/issues/10

From my point of view, there are three options left if we are not aiming at Elsevier or Springer (which would be my preference, see also http://www.leopoldina.org/fileadmin/redaktion/Publikationen/Allianz/2016_12_02_DEAL.pdf why):

Energies
http://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies/about
pro: fully open access / fast: a first decision provided to authors approximately 31 days after submission / peer-reviewed / energy-relalted
contra: don't now what kind of reputation the journal has, topic of the journal fitting to energy but maybe not especially to modeling tools.
costs: 1400 CHF

International Journal of Sustainable Energy Planing and Management
https://journals.aau.dk/index.php/sepm/about/submissions#authorGuidelines
pro: open access / no fee / peer-review / 5000-8000 words
contra: AAU is promoting EnergyPlan and they already questioned oemof at our 100%RE conference, no latex style for handing in (maybe on request) / long review time?

PLOS ONE
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/journal-information
PLOS ONE features reports of original research from all disciplines within science and medicine. By not excluding research on the basis of subject area, PLOS ONE facilitates the discovery of connections between research whether within or between disciplines.
Submissions describing methods, software, databases, or other tools We consider submissions describing methods, software, databases, or other tools if they follow the appropriate reporting guidelines. See the submission guidelines for more information.
pro: one of the very first open access / fully open access / latex / good policies
contra: $1,495 USD (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/publication-fees) / not energy-realated

IEEE
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/RecentIssue.jsp?punumber=60 (oder Power Transactions, o. ä.)
http://open.ieee.org/pubchanges.html
pro: high impact factor / international peer group / open access / peer-review / latex-hand-in mit fertigem template
contra: fees ($1,750-$1,950), old-fashioned and only partly open journal

I know that some people from our wind institute have published in Energies..

I'm a guest editor for a the open science blog named GenR.
The special theme is: Open Science and Climate Change: A GenR Theme

One article is titled: Open Science Collaboration: new collaboration types becoming the norm
I would like to present oemof as an example for a community driven open software project in energy system research.

I am planing to write an introduction to the topic and then have a contribution (about 1 page) from the dev team. No too technical but rather explaining the experiences with collaborative developments.
Is anybody interested in joining or writing?

• Should we add the "official" paper to the website? https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211467X18300609
• And I also noticed that we haven't uploaded the latest presentations from the dev-meeting in November
• Another idea was to add a link "Getting started" where we name the "dive in resources" such as the documentation, paper, distance ourselves from specific sources (see #40), etc.

What do you think?

This issue was created to continue the discussion about the creation of an oemof foundation.

This topic was discussed at the oemof dev/user meeting may 2019. Now it is necessary to get feedback of the whole oemof community

Benefits of a foundation:

1. Representation of oemof as an organisation that is independent from the participating institutes.
2. Fixing the non-valid copyright as "oemof developer".
3. A foundation would be able to accept donations.
4. A foundation would give an additional trust in the stability of the oemof group
5. People would feel more responsible
6. 5 euro Conference fee could be collected for dev/user meetings

Open questions:

1. How would decisions be made?
2. Could only members decide?
3. Who would be allowed to become a member under which conditions?
4. Or would the decision process be separated from the foundation and go on as usual?

Arguments against a foundation:

1. It is not clear how the foundation would alter the representation of the institutes. The website oemof.org already equally presents the participating institutes.
2. Much work to establish institutionalized structures.
3. It would not be possible to donate from project.
4. It is much easier to finance something like "homepage hosting" in projects.

Examples of foundations:

• FSFE (Free Software Foundation Europe) e.V.
• openEMS as an example for a software foundation

protocoll

Let's discuss the listed issues 🤓

We can collect possible paper ideas in this issue. Additionally, we should add the papers in draft
that already exist.

I think the following information would be usefull (if available):

• Topic
• Very brief discription
• Authors
• Raw planned date of submission
• Kind of paper (conference, peer-reviewed journal, working-paper etc)

If these information exist, we can also move them to a wiki or an extra issue and add the link here, to keep this issue clean.

@oemof/oemof-developer-group According to the typical format of oemof meetings the meeting would start 4.12.2017 about noon and end on 6.12.2017 around noon.

Possible topics could be:

• solph roadmap/release?

• oemof roadmap (Future of feedinlib, demandlib, windpowerlib,...)

• integration of new developers/supporters

• public relations

• acquisition of projects

• who is working on oemof? / who is planing to contribute?

• non-linear formulations

• multi period model (expansion optimization)

• ...

Who will take part (please add your name)

• @uvchik
• @beritRLI (only 1 day)
• @EdithaK (only 1 day)
• @jnnr
• @c-moeller
• @pkassing
• @birgits
• @SabineHaas
• @simnh
• @ckaldemeyer
• @S3PP ?
• @wolfbunke
• @gnn
• @mloenneberga
• Tillmann

Please invite people who may be interested in supporting (not only using) oemof and its libraries. I think the meeting could be a good place to integrate new people.

Welcome to the oemof organisation. Please add a comment here if you want to become a member.

In the first step you become a member of the organisation to able to see all teams and their purpose.

In the second step you can choose a team you want to be a member of. Please ask if you have any questions.

Being a member of a team implies the following:

I will actively support the purpose of the team
I will answer to issues/pull requests regarding the team
I will answer if the team name is mentioned (@example_team_name)

If you do not want to do these things you can easily leave the team. Doing so will help the other team members to see on who they can rely.

We would like to have many members but it does not help if they do not participate.

Leaving a team is not for ever. You can make a break and join again after a while.

Sometimes we would like to have a consensus within a team and it is annoying if team members do not answer. "I will not have time the next two weeks, you can decide it without me." would be one acceptable answer for example.

This issue collects all the TODOs with which we came up during the developer meeting that took place in November 2018. This is just a general collection. Feel free to add anything that's missing. We'll create smaller issues for tasks which take longer to finish. Small hint: even if you're not the one who created this issue, you can try editing it. Some people can. ;)

• Set up a contact form on the oemof website that uses fire-bot or the Github API to automatically create issues in the oemof repository. This lowers the participation barrier for people who can't be bothered to create a Github account.

• Research alternatives to reddit or discourse. We do know that we want to move away from the openmod forum and we also know that we want a forum instead of a mailing list because the former allows us to structure discussions better. The biggest problem currently is that the best solution has to be self hosted, which requires funding and maintenance time, while external solutions like reddit are always non-optimal in a certain way.

• Add major events in the history of oemof that should enter the timeline to this pad: https://ethercalc.org/q2q82eucgr34

• Update Website in terms of Names and Institutions. @simnh

• Collect names and Institutes @ckaldemeyer

• Think about the community structure of oemof @simnh

• Finalize oemof timeline @jnnr

• Implement node removal in an energy system. This will be a rather "expensive" operation, as the groups will be reset and recreated. For convenience, bulk removal can be implemented, so that group recreation doesn't happen after every node is removed.

• Implement mutable node attributes. There's one big caveat for this: it is impossible to intercept node attribute mutation for all scenarios. So while user's can mutate, they also have to explicitly notify the EnergySystem that they have done so, before rebuilding the optimization model.

• create a heat component repository (sandbox)

  • structure: uwe makes a proposal

• Implement piecewise linear constraints. Applications: Decreasing investment costs, load-dependent efficiencies,... @jnnr

• Create an example showing the possibilities of the ouputlib (views, slicing,..)

There are Zenodo created DOIs for oemof. I believe this is a great step to make specific versions citable. However, the integration might be improved. I see three points:

• Automatic creation seems to be broken (there is no DOI for the v0.2.3 release).
• The DOI is named in the README but using the badge would make it more visible:
• The license should be named in the Zenodo record.

Not for the first time I got the feedback that people did not see the main menu at first glance.

Therefore I would like to change to a another theme. You can preview it here: https://newoemof.wordpress.com/

We activate newoemof a long time ago to test themes. This one is very similar to the old one but the menu is now below the big logo.

@oemof/oemof-developer-group What do you think.

I would chang the theme, because this is not a big deal. I will not do anything else.

If anybody thinks we should improve our website - feel free.

We have a new mail address to contact the oemof developer group.

[email protected]

This address points to a mailing list hosted at posteo ([email protected]).

https://lists.posteo.de/listinfo/oemof

Please subscribe to this list and help to answer requests.

In my opinion we should use this address in the code base, web page, presentations etc.

@oemof/oemof-developer-group What do you think? Comments welcome!

Organison des Projektmanagements von Collaborativen Projekten
als neuer Issue, damit das decision making nicht mit Randdiskussionen überladen wird

@cswh : danke für den App-Hinweis
@Ludee : ich habe die PM Apps mal raussortiert. Da sollten wir möglichst zeitnah reingucken um zu sehen ob das hilfreich ist (möglichst mit Martin, von dem ich das Kürzel jetzt nicht weiß)
https://github.com/integrations/zenhub
https://github.com/integrations/huboard
https://github.com/integrations/waffle
https://github.com/integrations/overv-io

Currently we are scheduling a date for the next meeting in Flensburg:

https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Oemof_Meeting_Flensburg/

It was suggested to hold the next oemof meeting in Oldenburg. According to the schedule, it should be a user meeting. I checked back with our administration and they would agree to host the event from Wednesday the 15th to Friday the 17th of May. This is the time, we have room easily available. If the suggested dates do not fit, we would have to look if it is still possible. (I have a tentative reservation for the room for the dates named above.)

I would like to invite you to Berlin for the next oemof developer meeting in winter 2019!
The venue is the Beuth Hochschule für Technik Berlin. As nice conference rooms are scarce we would like to fix the date as soon as possible and an early fixing hopefully makes the participation more feasable for everyone.
There is a conference room available in the beginning of December. So I suggest the following date:
From Wednesday the 4th until Friday the 6th of December 2019.

Is the date convenient for you @oemof-developer ?

I would suggest that at least two developers should approve an external pull request. Even though more than two reviewers are named. That means two of them. If we are unsure we can name a reviewer in comment and ask for his/her opinion.

If it is an internal PR one reviewer should be enough.

@oemof/oemof-developer-group Do you agree?

We discussed it would be great to have a developer mailing list.

Dear oemofers,

The journal Software Impacts offers to publish short articles that highlight the impact of FOSS software in research. Money quote

Software Impacts provides a scholarly reference to software that has been used to address a research challenge. The journal disseminates impactful and re-usable scientific software through Original Software Publications (OSP) which describe the application of the software to research and the published outputs.

In my opinion, this fits perfectly for oemof at its current state. It provides the opportunity to show where oemof is used in a citable manner.

An article includes the following

A short descriptive paper of about three pages including an Impact Overview and references to publications where the software has been used

An open source software distribution with support material.

What do you think about a joint publication among @oemof-developer?

Who will attend to the next openmod conference in October?

I think it would be nice to provide some hands on tutorials there. Maybe based on the examples of the oemof user meeting or the webinar (#19).

At the moment, I am not sure if I will be able to go there.

I would like to prepare the PR for the release 0.2.0. We should send news and mails about the new release to ensure high visibility.
Therefore Miriam from RLI and I are writing a text from this fragments:
https://oemof.org/
http://oemof.readthedocs.io/en/latest/whats_new.html#v0-2-0
http://reiner-lemoine-institut.de/neue-oemof-version-jetzt-verfuegbar/
https://oemof.org/2017/03/27/the-oemof-springtime-release-v0-1-2/
https://oemof.org/2016/04/29/sunshine-release-v0-0-6/

I will post a first version within the next days here.
@ALL Please feel free to give suggestions for a nice text and/or graphics.

Suggested communication paths are:

• Openmod&Strommarkt mail distribution
• oemof news-Blog
• RLI-News-Blog
• News-Blog of the other institutions.
  @Non-RLI-developer: Can you give me a contact person or forward the text (when ready)?
• Probably we can also make a press release from it.
  @Non-RLI-developer: Do you agree that the RLI spreads the press release in the name of all?

oemof is a basic library that should be used in other libraries. The GPL3 makes it more complicate to use it in projects with permissive licenses such as BSD, MIT, Apache...

Therefore, I would like to change the license to a more permissive license.

The easy MIT licences could be a good choice.

Please poke your colleagues and edit the list (if you can) or write a comment with a clear statement.

UPDATE: The following list will be updated according to the votes below. Votes for MIT.

oemof-core, solph, outputlib, ✔️

@uvchik ✔️
@ckaldemeyer ✔️
@gnn ✔️
@simnh ✔️
@c-moeller ✔️
@jnnr ✔️
@gplssm ✔️
@p-snft ✔️
@steffenGit ✔️
@birgits ✔️
@cswh ✔️
@henhuy ✔️
@FranziPl ✔️
@joroeder ✔️
@FabianTU ✔️
@jakob-wo ✔️
@pkassing ✔️
@bmlancien ✔️
@lluismillet ✔️
@wolfbunke ✔️
@mloenneberga ✔️
@drjod ✔️
@elisapap ✔️
@elisagaudchau ✔️
@chrisflei ✔️
@ajimenezUCLA ✔️

oemof-examples ✔️

@simnh ✔️
@uvchik ✔️
@c-moeller ✔️
@birgits ✔️
@jnnr ✔️
@S3PP ✔️
@gnn ✔️
@ckaldemeyer ✔️
@oakca ✔️
@SabineHaas ✔️
@nesnoj ✔️
@pkassing ✔️
@p-snft ✔️
@fwitte ✔️
@tbors ✔️

feedinlib ✔️

@uvchik ✔️
@gplssm ✔️
@gnn ✔️
@birgits ✔️
@ckaldemeyer ✔️
@pajot ✔️

windpowerlib ✔️

@uvchik ✔️
@SabineHaas ✔️
@birgits ✔️
@pajot ✔️

demandlib ✔️

@uvchik ✔️
@gplssm ✔️
@birgits ✔️
@jnnr ✔️
@c-moeller ✔️
@pajot ✔️
@henhuy ✔️
@Pyosch ✔️

tespy ✔️

@fwitte ✔️
@uvchik ✔️
@ShuangChen88 ✔️
@TimHoener ✔️
@pjhansen ✔️
@nilsstolze ✔️

cydets ✔️

@ckaldemeyer ✔️
@fwitte ✔️
@psychon ✔️

Since the user meeting there has been some discussion about ways to make the first steps in oemof easier and how to connect users. I tried to collect the different ideas here and hope I didn't forget anything. If so, feel free to add to the list. We can discuss this at the next webco in June.

• oemof book
• separate user and developer documentation
• take the existing examples (https://github.com/oemof/oemof/tree/dev/examples/solph) add some documentation and move them to the main documentation (as PyPSA does it https://www.pypsa.org/examples/index.html) or a separate documentation; examples could also be the basis for a paper that could be linked on our website
• jupyter notebooks for examples
• improved documentation on how to run the examples for python newbies
• user page on homepage with link to projects using oemof, user forum, youtube videos
• FAQ on homepage
• user forum at openmod forum

In the issue on the next dev meeting in December #46, some of us have shown their interest in contributing something from the oemof side to the openmod meeting. I think it is nice to use the coincidence of having both meeting at roughly the same place and time. I open the issue so we can discuss ideas.

First idea: There is a group of researchers called "Python Wärme" at TU Berlin that have regular meetings to talk about thermal system modeling in python. @jakob-wo has been there and presented already. We could aim for a common session on that topic where we present our tools, challegenges, etc. What do you think, @oemof-developer?

At the oemof developer meeting we talked about decision making in oemof.

For some developer it is annoying that they try to integrate the whole group but do not get replies.

Therefore we decided to separate the organisation with two new teams. Please correct me if I report something wrong.

It is not an honour or an award for something to be part of a team. It is just an information for others.

• The members of the repository teams have the right to push into their repository, but have to take care of these repositories, review pull requests, and fix reported bugs. If you do not feel confident you shoud not be part of this team but contribute via pull requests.

• The members of the developer team should somehow feel related to the developing process of oemof. Members of these group should know each other a little more than just by their github user name and should know a way to contact them e.g. by e-mail. This group is the owner of the license and the members should be reply to issues regarding the license .

• The members of the steering committee should be interested in the whole oemof project. They should take part in discussion regarding the future of oemof (issues, web-conferences, meetings), call of or reply in any way. Members of this group should know each other and new members should be introduced somehow.

We do not want to create hard rules but want to avoid that we wait for the response of somebody who is no longer interested. You can

Please unsign if you think, that you are not in the right group. Or join if you think you should belong to one of these groups. You can also leave and rejoin later. Not being a member of a team does not mean that you are not part of oemof. The oemof community is much bigger and everybody who uses, contributes or supports oemof in any way is part of this community. If you want to stay in contact without getting to much e-mails, just follow the blog on our website.

Any objections ❓

Do you think there should be a loose group for the community? Proposals are welcome!

At the developer meeting we decided to have a regular webco, every first Monday of every second month at 4 p.m..
The next webco will be June 5th, the following two August 7th and October 2nd.
Documentation of the webcos: https://etherpad.net/p/oemof_webco

We will also post the dates of the webcos on our website so that other users who are interested to join can do so.

The name of the oemof group was under review because of the author for the licence.

suggestion are: (link to ngram)
A. oemof developer group
B: oemof development group
C: oemof developing group

Voting:
Decision making process with one vote per participant.
Simple majority needed. Two weeks for a veto.

Participants (6):
@uvchik @beritRLI @gnn @birgits @ckaldemeyer @Ludee

Result:
A. 6 oemof developer group
B. 0
C. 0

Veto deadline:
21.12.2016

result of phone call with @gplessm: He will join for writing. Together with @simnh we talk on the phone on friday 11 o'clock (not the webco room because I will not have internet then)
+496151627315124
PIN 7041
Draft/Contents still here: https://www.overleaf.com/5254475wxgygx#/16524521/
We would like to use an open access journal, energy-related, not too expensive, if you have any ideas, we are happy to hear about that.

The oemof organisation is divided in teams (see: https://github.com/orgs/oemof/teams). The purpose of each team is described in the team description.

Please read the following and decide in which team you want to be. You can write a comment with the team(s) you want to be a member in. No answer means that you do not want to be in any team. I will remove members who haven't answered next year.

Being a member of a team implies the following:

• I will actively support the purpose of the team
• I will answer to issues/pull requests regarding the team
• I will answer if the team name is mentioned (@stupid_example_team_name)

If you do not want to do these things you can easily leave the team. Doing so will help the other team members to see on who they can rely.

We would like to have many members but it does not help if they do not participate.

Leaving a team is not for ever. You can make a break and join again after a while.

Sometimes we would like to have a consensus within a team and it is annoying if team members do not answer. "I will not have time the next two weeks, you can decide it without me." would be one acceptable answer for example.

On the last developer meeting we discussed a possible revision of the front page to emphasize more the uniqueness of oemof in the energy system modelling world (more community, less technical properties of the energy system modelling). Here is my proposal. See also the current front page as comparison. @oemof/oemof-developer-group @oemof/documentation What do you think? This is only a first draft, so comments are very welcome.

(I'm also in the middle of a revision process of the applications sub page and will open another issue the next days...)

The possible new front page:

The old one:

As a proposal I would remove the applications sections (as its anyway too difficult to maintain this stuff) and replace this a a project section instead.

What do you think?

@oemof/oemof-developer-group There is a Zenhub-Webhook active in oemof.

What is it for? Who uses it?

The materials of AP 1 open_eGo are stored on the Vernetzen-Server (/open_eGo/Veroeffentlichungen/enviroinfo/comm_dev) and the cocument is on the git-repository (for access please ask Martin Glauer @MGlauer)

@fraukewiese started at overleaf a draft:
https://www.overleaf.com/5254475wxgygx#/16524521/

Hier ist auch das pdf dazu falls ihr Euch nicht auf Overleaf anmelden wollt (konnte das pdf irgendwie nicht hochladen, daher als .zip)
oemof_paper_suggestion.pdf.zip
@Ludee
@EvaWie

to be taken into account for next user meeting:

• split sessions for total newbies and more advanced users
• introduction to oemof - talk about what is possible so people get a quick overview if it is a good tool to use
• tutorial where to find the documentation and how to work with it

other:

• establish forum for users
• youtube video for installation of oemof for example (use the openmod channel, janet nagel will do it)

roles and responsabilities is a subject we also mentioned in the expert-interviews. In the attached google docs is a first summary for oemof.
Many of the roles can be joint but they should be formulated one by one so that it is easier to change the responsability for them or to puzzle them in different ways.

Feel free to comment.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1SMXyg7AzyGClsXqBxuRUm9RtbwOfirLsak6_Btq9V8A/edit?usp=sharing

@oemof/oemof-developer-group

Where will be the next developer meeting (Magdeburg, Flensburg)?
When will be the next developer meeting (November/December)?
Shall we combine it again with a user meeting?

I just talked to Robbie on the openmod workshop and he kindly asked me if it was possible for us to move the very specific oemof questions and discussions away from the openmod forum in future.

As an alternative, I would think of a simple google mailing list (that is archived) as it has a very low entry barrier and many projects are using this approach.

What do you think?

I would like to send news and mails about the new release after christmas at 8th january to ensure high visibility. Please comment below if you disagree.
Please feel free to give suggestions for a nice text and/or communication paths.

We've got a request from the "Forschungsnetzwerk Systemanalyse (AG 3)" to hold a webinar on oemof in the context of their regular webinar series, see also https://www.forschungsnetzwerke-energie.de/forschungsnetzwerk-systemanalyse/arbeitsgruppen

In our project "oemof_heat" we have a budget for workshops, so I could prepare such a webinar if there are no objections. Any ideas or hints are of course very welcome.

I think @simnh and @ckaldemeyer have already been informed. Could you briefly post if you discuss more than I know... (I know everything I've just posted in this issue 😄)