• Think about questions that you or others might have about open science tools or infrastructure
• Collect similar questions that have been posted elsewhere
• Add them to https://ask-open-science.org/tag/tools or https://ask-open-science.org/tag/infrastructure
• Collect and add useful answers

@bmkramer and @JeroenBosman have done excellent work in this area, here. Though it's remit was scholarly communication, and not open science more broadly.

What are others? How can we best construct an ecosystem map that serves our purposes?

I am a contributor to an open project (https://github.com/openml/OpenML, https://www.openml.org/) and was wondering the following:

• What does it mean for a project to be part of the JROST?
• Where can people add suggestions for projects to join JROST?
• How do members of JROST communicate?
• Which types of projects are of interest for JROST?

I am happy to help put your answers into the contributor guidelines if you'd like.

@openml/core

A very basic version sits at https://tools.wmflabs.org/scholia/topic/Q309823 , biased towards publications I am aware of.

For instance,

• the OpenCon 2017 Doathon had a flurry of submissions relevant to our perspective on the open science landscape,
• the Open Science Barcamp this March had a good number of interesting sessions, and
• there are hackathons, doathons, sprints and similar activities taking place around the globe on a daily basis, thereby contributing to the development of the open science landscape and related spaces.

It would be useful to review such activities systematically, to engage with them and to include them into the roadmap we are aiming to create.

Personas are stories that highlight key elements of user experience in a way that helps developers and designers create and improve such experiences — check out how Mozilla put it.

For our purposes, personas would be useful that concentrate on

• how users interact (or would like to) with existing tools in the open science landscape
• tools, services or interactions missing in the open science landscape
• scenarios where open workflows are lagging behind closed ones
• anything annoying that drives people (or machines) away from open science workflows

and similar issues.

One thing to think about during and after the sprint is how a JROST logo might look like.

The image we are currently using in this repo's README is just a very first shot at visualizing what it is that we are aiming at. It captures some aspects of the project but not others, and it is not very usable as a logo.

Another starting point is the initial logo used over at https://twitter.com/OpenSciRoadmap (see archive).
It is usable as a logo but basically does not capture anything about the ideas of open science, a roadmap and doing it jointly.

Some guidance is available at
https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:WikiProject_Open .

The focus here is on improving existing items. If you're not sure whether something you're interested in has or, or should have one, please leave a comment here or on the Discussion page of the above WikiProject.

The all-contributors project seeks to address — at least for GitHub repos — the generic need of open projects to acknowledge diverse contributions. You can see it in action in the README of https://github.com/endangereddataweek/resources .

I think it would be good to give this a try here as well.

This ticket is a follow-up to #15.

Based on our personas, and the real world needs of those personas, imagine user stories that characterize new capabilities that do not yet exist either within individual projects, or more importantly between two or more projects, that allow people to get things done they wouldn't have been able to before, or to do so more effortlessly or efficiently such that there is a transformative change in capacity or productivity.

These user stories might imply the creation of new standards, or practices, expanding or normalizing APIs, integrating common systems like identity, authentication, data handling, harmonizing user interface or simply creating new features that did not exist before.

These user stories might be quite narrow, and talk about existing projects, or they might be more broad-- such as, "As a user I need to be able to be signed into as a user across any project I'm working on, so that those projects can leverage a common identity and more easily move data between them."

In order to create a Joint Roadmap for Open Science Tools, we need to have a closer look at individual examples of tools, services or other components of the open science ecosystem, and find ways to map them on a joint timeline.

Has it already been decided what criteria will be used to assess openness of projects/tools/platforms to be included in the roadmap? (and perhaps also to identify areas where improvement is recommended)?

For instance, the [Principles of Open Scholarly Infrastructure] (http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.1314859) might be useful for assessing the infrastructure of tools and platforms. Perhaps in combination with aspects of the FORCE11 principles of the scholarly commons (see also preprint) for both the openness of resulting research objects (Open, FAIR and citable) and openness to participation.

Full disclose: this ties in closely to some of the work we are ourselves planning to do over the next months*, and it would be great to see if we can collaborate!

*See the proposals for FORCE2018 that @JeroenBosman and I put in:

• On the positive side: workflows with commons-compliant tools and platforms
• If you build it (open), do they come?

JROST is a new project and as such has communication and information needs to help the project coordinate not just during this sprint, but on an ongoing basis. While JROST already has a domain (jrost.org), a generic email address, a basic website, and a basic wordmark, additional needs include:

• Clear licensing policies and practices
• Clear contributor policies and practices
• A code of conduct
• Augmentations to the website
• A blog
• A better logo and/or wordmark
• Transparent processes for individuals and organizations to join JROST
• A channel for email communication
• A channel for chat communication
• Channels for social media communication
• Probably other things, suggestions welcome!

There are things that many science projects, experiments or other collaborations might tend to want or need. We should categorize those and provide leading examples of known solutions in those categories. It's possible there are already good inputs / catalogs that already exist. What are they?

Potential categories might include:

Project management
Collaboration
Issue tracking
Code and data repositories
Manuscript authoring
Publishing
Peer review
Data analysis / Machine learning
Image processing

What are your suggestions?

Since we aim at systemic improvements to the open science landscape, a good starting point for our Mozsprint activities would be to

• review other Mozsprint submissions in terms of how they might affect this landscape, and engage with them as appropriate, ideally in a way that would bring about synergies during and after the sprint
• review past Mozsprint projects in a similar fashion and try to follow up with them

Perhaps following a structure like this (replicated at the bottom of this post for reuse):

• Name: Daniel Mietchen
• ORCID (use full URL): http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9488-1870
• Your Mozsprint project/ submission: mozilla/global-sprint#285
• What brought you here: I am interested in integrating collaborative research workflows with the open web, and so are others, which is why we started thinking about a Joint Roadmap for Open Science Tools and submitted this Mozsprint project in order to exchange thoughts and ideas on this with you and others.
• What you can imagine bringing or doing here: Ideas and practical experience around ways in which different components of the open science landscape could be improved collectively. Hope to be able to move forward with some of these.
• Contact outside GitHub: e.g. https://twitter.com/EvoMRI or https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Special:EmailUser/Daniel_Mietchen .
• Anything else: While this repo and almost all of my research-related writing is in English, I am also interested in how we can facilitate open-science interactions across languages.

All fields are optional.

This ticket was inspired by endangereddataweek/resources#21 and anticipated in #15 .

- **Name**: 
- **ORCID** (use full URL): 
- **Your Mozsprint project/ submission**: 
- **What brought you here**: 
- **What you can imagine bringing or doing here**: 
- **Contact outside GitHub**: 
- **Anything else**: 

Whenever you learn something during the course of this event, make a note in this thread.

For instance, by digging into Endangered Data Week #153, I learned about

• the all-contributors project, which seeks to address — at least for GitHub repos — the generic need of open projects to acknowledge diverse contributions. You can see it in action in the README of https://github.com/endangereddataweek/resources .
• a possibility to welcome newcomers to a project by having a "hello world" kind of ticket, which they have as their issue 21.

In both cases, we should probably set up something similar here.

This ticket was inspired by
sparcopen/open-research-doathon#45
and
sparcopen/open-research-doathon#16 .

Whether this is a visualization, a sonification, a haptic experience, a game, a cartoon, a 3D print or something else, the important point here is to allow people — and perhaps machines as well — to explore certain aspects of the open science ecosystem or its evolution in an intuitive way that works at different levels of familiarity with the matter.