| Misc |
Group members attended tutorial sessions |
4 |
| Distrbuted dev model: |
decisions made by unanmyous vote} |
4 |
|
group meetings had a round robin speaking order |
4 |
|
group meetings had a moderator that managed the round robin |
4 |
|
group meeting moderator rotated among the group |
4 |
|
code conforms to some packaging standard |
4 |
|
code has can be downloaded from some standard package manager |
4 |
|
workload is spread over the whole team (one team member is often Xtimes more productive than the others... but nevertheless, here is a track record that everyone is contributing a lot) |
4 |
|
Number of commits |
4 |
|
Number of commits: by different people |
4 |
|
Issues reports: there are many |
4 |
|
issues are being closed |
4 |
|
License: exists |
4 |
|
DOI badge: exists |
4 |
|
Docs: doco generated , format not ugly |
4 |
|
Docs: what: point descriptions of each class/function (in isolation) |
4 |
|
Docs: how: for common use cases X,Y,Z mini-tutorials showing worked examples on how to do X,Y,Z |
4 |
|
Docs: why: docs tell a story, motivate the whole thing, deliver a punchline that makes you want to rush out and use the thing |
4 |
|
Docs: 3 minute video, posted to YouTube. That convinces people why they want to work on your code. |
4 |
|
(hard) code conforms to some known patterns |
4 |
| Tools Matter |
Use of version control tools |
4 |
|
Extensive use of version control tools |
4 |
|
Repo has an up-to-date requirements.txt file |
4 |
|
Repo does not have "ignore" files. |
4 |
|
Use of style checkers |
3 |
|
Extensive Use of style checkers |
3 |
|
Use of code formatters. |
4 |
|
Extensive Use of code formatters. |
4 |
|
Use of syntax checkers. |
4 |
|
Extensive use of syntax checkers. |
4 |
|
Use of code coverage |
2 |
|
Extensive use of code coverage |
2 |
|
other automated analysis tools |
4 |
|
Extensive use of other automated analysis tools |
4 |
|
test cases exist |
4 |
|
test cases are routinely executed |
4 |
| consensus-oriented model |
the files CONTRIBUTING.md and CODEOFCONDUCT.md has have multiple edits by multiple people |
4 |
|
the files CONTRIBUTING.md lists coding standards and lots of tips on how to extend the system without screwing things up |
4 |
|
multiple people contribute to discussions |
4 |
|
issues are discussed before they are closed |
4 |
|
Chat channel: exists |
4 |
|
Chat channel: is active |
4 |
|
test cases:.a large proportion of the issues related to handling failing cases. |
4 |
| zero internal boundaries |
evidence that the whole team is using the same tools: everyone can get to all tools and files |
4 |
|
evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. config files in the repo, updated by lots of different people) |
4 |
|
evidence that the whole team is using the same tools (e.g. tutor can ask anyone to share screen, they demonstrate the system running on their computer) |
4 |
|
evidence that the members of the team are working across multiple places in the code base |
4 |
| low-regressions rule |
(hard to judge) features released are not subsequently removed |
4 |
| short release cycles |
(hard to see in short projects) project members are committing often enough so that everyone can get your work |
4 |