Profiles of indicators for clusters (GAM)

[dgarijo]

Some communities think indicators are too many. We need to create profiles with the ones that simplify the number. We should present this as a new view in the indicator catalog -> quality pipelines.
We already have elixir and ENVRI, now we may need others too.

[juckel]

Thanks Daniel, I believe we can also address this by "hiding" the specific indicators behind more community (or even RSE) related dimensions. I imagine if we were to define a set of high level dimensions, this would be something that the clusters can communicate better. To start out with something let me propose a few things:

Tier 1

• Must have
  • Version control
  • User Documentation (Readme)
• Should have
  • License

Tier 2

• all of Tier 1 plus:
• Must have
  • License
  • Tests
  • Contribution guido
  • Developer documentation
• Should have
  • automated testing
  • packaging
  • onboarding mechanism

Tier 3

• all of Tier 2 plus:
• Must have
  • automated testing
  • packaging/automated installation
  • onboarding mechanism
• should have
  • profiling for code quality

I then propose to suggest as EVERSE a mapping from the dimensions to the indicators while enabling the science cluster to also offer an own mapping.

[vuillaut]

I mostly agree with @juckel, at the difference that imho:

• License should be a must for all tiers this comes before version control
• Unit test (not necessarily 100% coverage...) should be a must for tier 2
• Profiling for code quality should be clarified

[juckel]

Please let me argue for Version Control before license:
As long as the code does not leave the legal entity employment laws/enrollment rules also cover IP usage. However, should you want to introduce or change a license later, a track of who did what is essential (also for all other things where you might want to prove who did what). Hence, I believe a license is actually only necessary once your code is shown outside of your organization. I agree that this would e.g. be the case when you publish it as supplement to a paper or such - hence the "should" have and maybe also describing this use case.

For testing:
In my experience unit tests are not as common (also for community projects) as some generic system test in the sense of: does it produce the correct output for a known input.

With profiling I meant some kind of performance awareness and consideration.

[dgarijo]

Thanks for opening this discussion The current should/must/crucial have comes from a consensus from in which multiple researchers voted (including Thomas). I will check how this proposal compares to what we currently have. If consensus is not reached we can have this as a different profile Happy to have an incremental way to show the tiers/indicators alignment El jue., 5 feb. 2026 7:06 p. m., Guido Juckeland ***@***.***> escribió:

…

*juckel* left a comment (EVERSE-ResearchSoftware/indicators#126) <#126 (comment)> Please let me argue for Version Control before license: As long as the code does not leave the legal entity employment laws/enrollment rules also cover IP usage. However, should you want to introduce or change a license later, a track of who did what is essential (also for all other things where you might want to prove who did what). Hence, I believe a license is actually only necessary once your code is shown outside of your organization. I agree that this would e.g. be the case when you publish it as supplement to a paper or such - hence the "should" have and maybe also describing this use case. For testing: In my experience unit tests are not as common (also for community projects) as some generic system test in the sense of: does it produce the correct output for a known input. With profiling I meant some kind of performance awareness and consideration. — Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#126 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AALTIGXGICPPDYJEWA5BGKD4KOBEHAVCNFSM6AAAAACUALOTEGVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZTQNJUHE4DGMJZGY> . You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID: ***@***.***>

[vuillaut]

Please let me argue for Version Control before license: As long as the code does not leave the legal entity employment laws/enrollment rules also cover IP usage. However, should you want to introduce or change a license later, a track of who did what is essential (also for all other things where you might want to prove who did what). Hence, I believe a license is actually only necessary once your code is shown outside of your organization. I agree that this would e.g. be the case when you publish it as supplement to a paper or such - hence the "should" have and maybe also describing this use case.

Ok I understand your point.
However this reasoning depends on the employer IP rules.
I did want to argue about the importance order of version control and licensing, I think both are must-haves for any piece of software.