What categories of discussions do we want?

[tclune]

As per a suggestion by @amolod , I am opening an issue here to discuss what categories we want for GEOS-ESM.

While playing around, I found that there is actually a higher-level organization option: "sections". Each section can have multiple categories. Currently we just have the default "unnamed" section. Possibly sections could be for specific GEOS configurations, and then under those we could have {Questions, Announcements, ...}

[briardew]

I am alive. Call me crazy that I just want PDF documentation. I feel like we need documentation about how to find documentation.

[msl3v]

Ping!
Maybe also an "outstanding issues" section

[amdasilva]

Well, there are many options for sections. From the top of your head in no particular order

1. Running GEOSgcm (model only) experiments. May need to have subsections for OS releases, hardware types, HEC center, etc.
2. Running the ADAS experiments
3. Running S2S experiments
4. Build system issues
5. GEOS-ESM Gitflow best practices
6. GEOS-ESM tagging best practices
7. External Data file management
8. ESMF and MAPL issues
9. GEOS-ESM python best practices
10. GES-ESM architecture design issues
11. Mepo/hepo issues and best practices
12. Component science discussion (with subsections for GOCART, GEOSCHEMchem, etc.) The idea is to create discussion topics as those component gate keepers judge necessary
13. Component coupling issues
14. General issues (catch all)

[rtodling]

Arlindo,

I am sorry but I will disagree w/ the list above. Those are not discussion - those are topics of discussion. Some of the above are documentation stuff (not quite a discussion per se).

And for the record when it comes to you item number (2) I have a comprehensive Wiki on running experiments and way more:

https://github.com/GEOS-ESM/GEOSadas/wiki

Some of the other things you suggest belong to much broader categories of Discussion topics: for example,

A discussion group on Workflows would have discussions going on items such as (5), (6), (9), etc ...

In my mind discussion groups the level of ESM would be:

COMPO
AERO
ADAS
ALGO
OBS
MLT
SI

etc ... (pls notice some of the above map to JCSDA's JEDI discussion groups).

For example, again, within SI you would have discussions going on (8), (11), etc

A topic within a discussion should not be created by this group - it would be created by a user in need of discussion a topic of interest ... if Coupling a Component is a topic of interest the user would open that discussion under the Discussion group that would best suite it ... perhaps the user would label that discussion w/ multiple labels, such as AERO, SI -

Anyway ... just saying ...

[tclune]

We also want the list to be relatively short. Otherwise it just becomes a new way to lose track of things.

[briardew]

@rtodling please edit COMPO to CoDAS. We always have and always will use this terminology in the GEOS ecosystem. There are already several papers and products that use it. I think Jerome was just unaware of existing terminology when he started.