Category Archives: ideas

ADASS BoF: Implementing Ideas for Improving Software Citation and Credit

On Tuesday at ADASS, ASCL Advisory Committee Chair Peter Teuben led a Birds of a Feather session intended as a working session to have people put some of the ideas for improving software citation and credit into practice.

ADS now has a doc type called software

Slide from Peter’s opening presentation

He opened the session with a few remarks about last year’s BoF, similar efforts elsewhere, and examples of progress since last year. Yes, there has been progress! He then showed a list of actionable items and asked people to work on them, adding their work to a common Google doc. His slides are here.

And they did! It was the quietest BoF ever, I believe, as Keith Shortridge, Bruce Berriman, and Jessica Mink wrote about their experiences in releasing software; Renato Callado Borges and Greg Sleap provided guidance on the types of software contributions that add value to science; Alberto Accomazzi, Nuria Lorente, and Kai Polsterer listed ways one can publish and take credit for software; Peter Teuben, Steven Crawford, and possibly others pulled together a list of organization web pages about software created at the institutions, this as a way to highlight and recognize scientific software contributions; Maurizio Tomasi added a suggestion for gathering licensing information; and Thomas Robitaille, Ole Streicher, Tim Jenness, Kimberly DuPrie, and I discussed exactly what should be in the “Preferred citation field” of the ASCL and various people listed about a dozen preferred citations to be added to the ASCL and others used the Suggest a change or addition link for several software packages to provide preferred citation information.

Though Peter had asked that people work for about 30 minutes, he monitored contributions to the Google doc and saw work was still being done so did not call us back together until only 15 minutes or so were left in the session. Instead of having people report back on what they had done as originally plan, he asked for other feedback instead, as progress made was evident in the shared document, and after a bit of discussion on licensing and a few other comments, closed the session.

Though the session is over, the next phase is to put this information to use or disseminate it in some way so it can do some good and be the changes we want to see for software!


Birds of a Feather session at ADASS on software citation and credit

The Implementing Ideas for Improving Software Citation and Credit BoF is intended to be a working session to put ideas already generated into action! Everyone in the community has a role in improving it. We have listed a lot of ideas in the previous post about this BoF, have slides online here, and a Google doc to which you can contribute here.


The Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) conference starts today in Trieste, Italy with two tutorials, Everything you’ve heard about Agile development is wrong by Simon O’Toole and Multi-dimensional linked data exploration with glue by Thomas Robitaille, and then the opening reception.

The ASCL has two activities at ADASS this year. I’m presenting a poster on the ASCL’s growth over the past year; the poster will be featured in a separate blog post tomorrow. On Tuesday, Peter Teuben, chair of the ASCL Advisory Committee, and other ASCLers here are running a Birds of a Feather session on Implementing Ideas for Improving Software Citation and Credit; this is a follow-up of last year’s session on Improving Software Citation and Credit. This year, we will look at some of the ideas that came out of last year’s session along with ideas generated at the Engineering Academic Software seminar held in June, 2016 and WSSSPE4, held last month at the University of Manchester, and work to implement them. These ideas include:

  • collecting and publishing stories from people who have released their software to share their experience with doing so
  • updating software sites you own to explicit state how your software should be cited
  • emailing code authors who don’t have clear citation instructions on their repos/code sites to suggest they make clear how their codes should be cited
  • adding preferred citation methods to ASCL entries via the “Suggest a change or addition” link or sending them to associate editor Kimberly duPrie or me to add directly
  • looking at your organization’s annual research activity report and suggesting ways it can specifically request software activities
  • writing a document that provides guidance about the types of software contributions that add value to science
  • developing guidelines for recognizing software contributions in hiring and promotion
  • gathering representative research software engineering job descriptions and adding them to the AstroBetter wiki, and suggesting other ways they can be shared for use them as examples

We look forward to an interesting and productive BoF, and an interesting and productive ADASS overall. And gelato, too!

Engineering Academic Software, Schloss Dagstuhl Day 0 and 1

Now that I’ve written extensively about days 2-4, I am cycling back to give day 1 its due, but first will say the sharing started on Sunday June 19 as people arrived for both the week-long Engineering Academic Software Perspectives Workshop and the three-day Information-centric Networking and Security Seminar; cake and coffee is available upon arrival, which gives folks an opportunity to meet, and conversation between participants in both workshops flowed easily. A Workshop participants on the site of the old schlossgroup of us decided to walk to the old castle ruins on the hill — up many steps — and it was on this little jaunt that I learned firsthand about stinging nettles (having only read about them before) with Andrei Chiș providing most of the hands-on instruction. He and I experimented with different nettles to see which produced the greatest stinging/welts; oh, the things we do for science! Those who had been unwilling victims of the plants provided more data points, and our quick survey leads us to suspect that the more mature the plant, the greater its “don’t touch!” defenses.

On Monday morning, we started with lightning introductions. We had been asked to create two slides, one on our relevant background and another on our interests for future use; a list of workshop participants and intro slides are available online. Tweet: "“I’m a programmer that somebody made into a professor.” @jurgenvinjuNext came presentations; first up was Dan Katz to talk about WSSSPE (Working towards Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experience), pronounced “wispy.” He shared the history of the organization, noting that three large annual meetings had been held, with several smaller interim meetings also having taken place. WSSSPE’s progression was to first identify challenges regarding software and best practices for sustainability, then to discuss solutions and ways to enable change, and then at WSSSPE3, to take action and encourage people to work in groups to put into practice the identified solutions. Katz’s presentation included an overview of each of the WSSSPE working groups and the progress each group has made. Some of the working groups overlapped with efforts taking place elsewhere; the Software Credit Working Group, for example, shared much in common with Force11’s Software Citation Working Group, so the decision was made to work on combining the two groups (which was successful) and for members to work on the Software Citation Principles that were being developed (which was also successful).

Katz also shared lessons learned from WSSSPE3 — what had worked, what could have worked better, and what didn’t work. He outlined what is planned for WSSSPE4 (taking place this September in Manchester), listing two tracks for the event: Building a sustainable future for open-use research software, which will concentrate on defining the future of open-use scientific software and initiating plans to arrive at this future; and Practices and experiences in sustainable software, which will concentrate on improving current practices. Katz concluded his talk by sharing links to the reports for WSSSPE1, WSSSPE2, and WSSSPE3 and the social media sites. PDF

The next presentation, Supporting Research Software Engineering, was by Mike Croucher. His talk focused on his work as an Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) Research Software Engineering Fellow; he is one of only seven to be awarded this new fellowship. He helps scientists improve their software in various ways, such as making it faster, more reliable/robust/user friendly, and more sustainable. (Now that I’ve typed that, Harder, Better, Faster, Stronger is playing on the radio in my head.) This has to be done carefully, for as Croucher put it: Tweet: "Users are afraid I’m going to “do computer science” to them. @walkingrandomly treads carefully when repairing user code."The phrase “do computer science to them” was echoed throughout the rest of the workshop; this idea — acknowledgement of that fear — seemed to resonate with many.

Croucher shared some of the outreach and education activities he’s been involved with, one of which was a (gentle) self-paced R tutorial held in a café. Volunteer facilitators walked around to answer questions, clarify information, and unstick people who got stuck and the session was a rousing success, so much so that there are now requests and expectations that more will be held!

It was acknowledged at the beginning of the day that academic software faces many challenges; Croucher’s presentation covered some of them, and included this stark slide:

Software is not valued in academizfollowed by:

Tweet: One of the major reasons I dropped out of my PhD was because I didn't believe academia could properly value software contributionsHe also mentioned the lack of funding for software activities, that soft-money researchers are discriminated against in favor of tenure-track and tenured faculty, and other issues. Oooo, he got a great discussion going with these and other points! In the active discussion, Cecilia Aragon made the point that we need to stop calling software “infrastructure,” as software has intellectual content.
Tweet: "Comment from @craragon : stop calling software 'infrastructure' because plumbers aren't invited to coauthor science papers"Though there are challenges, it’s not all bad — things are improving. The Software Sustainability Institute is funded by several organizations, the UK’s Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC) has recognized the importance of software through funding of the Research Software Engineers, and a Horizon 2020 project to provide “substantial funding” for open source maths research software. Croucher’s vision of the future includes core-funded research software engineers and a hope for tenure awarded on the basis of software contributions. He closed his excellent presentation with concrete steps for changing the perception of software engineering and leading a change in culture. Slides

After a coffee break, the last presentation of the morning was given by Christoph Becker on Sustainability design.  He covered the challenges of sustainability, and referred to the “sustainability debt” Sustainability debt model across realms and widening effectsthat is mostly unknown for most systems. The effects of sustainability (or lack thereof) can be considered from several angles; one way to look at this debt is across economic, technical social, environmental, and individual aspects, and whether it has an immediate, enabling, or structural effect. The concerns about sustainability have inspired the Karlskrona Manifesto for Sustainability Design, which seeks to address sustainability across different aspects and widening effects. The Manifesto identifies eleven “misperceptions and counterpoints”, seeks to correct or mitigate them, and educate and advocate for a constructive approach to enabling a paradigm shift. Tweet: "Software projects are full of present-future trade offs, yet SE hasn't learned from behavioral economics @ChriBecker at #dagstuhleas"Becker is particularly interested in studying how people decide on the trade-offs they make when designing software, and using the insight gleaned to develop and implement methods and tools for making better choices. PDF

After Becker’s talk, we broke for lunch, then went into four breakout sessions for a good part of the afternoon; the four selected by participants from the many that had been proposed were:

  • Academic software project typology
  • Examining sustainability for a particular project
  • Making the intellectual content of software visible
  • Empirical survey of software practices in a domain

After working in our breakout sessions, we came back together to report on our progress. Wow, was there a lot of discussion! Everyone was very engaged in listening to, commenting on, and discussing the reports from the different groups. It was a very exciting afternoon, and discussion continued right up until we were forced to break for dinner.

As previously reported, we had a discussion in the evening as well. Monday was an excellent start to an outstanding week!

Engineering Academic Software, Schloss Dagstuhl Day 3

The day started with a quick discussion about the afternoon; it is traditional for Schloss Dagstuhl seminars that Wednesday afternoons involve a social activity. It was determined on Tuesday that the activity was to be a hike some distance away from Dagstuhl with dinner after in another town, but several changes to these plans had to be ironed out and announced. After a few minutes spent on that, the morning session got underway and was furiously fast! This was an Open Mic, with participants having signed up while here to give short talks (ten minutes or less).

First up was Daniel Garijo on Software Metadata: Describing “dark software” in Geosciences. By “dark software,” he means that which is often hidden from view. He described the current state of the art for software description in geosciences and demonstrated, a semantic registry for scientific software, which currently includes information from several geosciences resources. As Ontosoft is not domain-specific, it has the capacity to expand into other fields as well. This is a very attractive and capable site. It uses a distributed approach to software registries and depends on crowdsourcing for metadata maintenance. The resource organizes software metadata using the OntoSoft ontology along six dimensions: identify software, understand and assess software, execute software, get support for the software, do research with the software, and update the software. Slideshare

Jurgen Vinju was next with Organising a research team around the research software around the research team in software engineering: Motivation, experiences, lessons. He talked about his experiences as the group leader of the SWAT (Software Analysis and Transformation) team at Centrum Wiskunde and Informatica (CWI), the national research institute for math and computer science in the Netherlands. tweet showing image of Jurgen presenting his Open Mic talkSWAT is all about the source code and supporting programmers to create more efficient, maintainable software. They work to understand and control software complexity to enable more and better tools. He made the point that research teams “prioritise for academic output which is not software.” He showed UseTheSource, a resource developed by CWI with contributions from other institutes and housing open-source projects related to software language engineering and metaprogramming. This allows more efficient programming by automating tasks that are cumbersome or hard, and allows synergies between software engineers, researchers, and industry. PDF
Tweet: A research team s not a software team. We have fewer resources. We need more investment in efficiency.

Dan Katz gave an overview of work done by the Force11 Software Citation Working Group; his presentation was titled Software Citation: Principles, Discussion, and Metadata. He provided Tweet: "Check out force 11 for progress in software citation"rationales for citing software, information on the WSSSPE and Force11 groups involved in developing software citation principles and the process used to develop them, and then the six principles, which focus on the importance of software, the need to credit and attribute the contributions software makes to research and to be able to uniquely identify software in a persistent and specific way, and that citations should enable access to the software and associated information about the software that informs its use. Katz brought up many of the discussions the WSSSPE and Force11 working groups had and their determinations, such as what software to cite, how to uniquely identify software, that peer-review of software is important but not required for citation, and how publishers can help.
Tweet: "It's more important to cite the software directly rather than a software paper"Each of the Open Mic sessions generated immediate discussion during the sessions and while the next presenter was setting up, and this session was no exception. When Katz pointed out that a common practice is to publish and cite papers about software (“software papers”), but that the Importance principle of the Force11 Working Group calls for the citation of the software itself, “on the same basis as any other research product”, this was countered with a comment that people should cite software papers if the software authors have requested that method of citation. Katz stated that could be done in addition to citing to the software, as one of his slides stated. The presentation concluded with information on the next steps for the Force11 Software Citation Working Group — to finalize the principles, and publish and circulate them for endorsement — and the likelihood of a Software Citation Implementation Group being formed to work with institutions, researchers, publishers, and other interested parties to put the principles into practice. PDF

Tweet: ""Software advisors are elected. It's a role people create when ask you questions" Katie Kuksenok"The fourth Open Mic talk was by Katerena Kuksenok on Best Practices (by any other name). This interesting talk looked atTweet: "User resistance: “I don’t want to use version control because I don’t want the world to see my terrible code.”" intersections of the technical, social, and cognitive aspects of software engineering in research, and asked how the available community and skill resources could be leveraged. brought together various elements brought up through the workshop so far, including different roles that had been identified, the need for software engineers to learn from scientists just as we hope researchers learn software engineering practices, Tweet: Mike Croucher "is s/w therapist/coach, helping scientists improve code...carefully; doesn't throw computer science at them!"and overcoming communications barriers. She referred back to a comment Mike Croucher had made in his talk on Monday, agreeing that software engineers should “do CS/SE with people not at them!” PowerPoint

After Kuksenok’s talk, I presented Restoring reproducibility: Making scientist software discoverable. This presentation was a quick overview of the ASCL, its history and a few of the changes to our infrastructure, the lessons we learned from Tweet: astrophysics source code library since 1999looking at what other astro code registries and repositories had done and what we did with those lessons, and some of the impact we have on the community. As with every other session, there was intermittent discussion, questions asked and answered, and conversation on the topic as I headed back to my chair and the next speaker set up. PowerPoint PDF

Robert Haines was up next with A Short* History of Research Software Engineers in the UK (*and probably incomplete). Before there were Research Software Engineers (RSE), there were RSEs going by other names, such as Post Doc and Research Assistant. These were the people in the lab who could code, andTweet" "#dagsRobert Haines reports on the coming to life of the job of “Research Software Engineer”, with jobs, a union, etc." fell “foul of publish or perish” because they were writing code rather than papers. RSEs might also have been hiding as those working in high performance computing or as a research group admin. He is an example of someone who has always done RSE work, though was not called an RSE until fairly recently. It was at a Software Sustainability Institute Collaborations Workshop in 2012 that there was a call to arm to recognize the Screen Shot 2016-06-26 at 12.34.52 PM contributions of those who write code rather than papers and are not purely researchers. They decided they needed a name, to unionize, and a policy campaign. He described the current environment, both the challenges and the positives, and shared that many people want to work in this field. Yes, discussion broke out in this session, too! It was remarkable how engaged everyone at the workshop was, and how often and easily discussion took place. PDF

Ralf presentingDan Katz made a very brief presentation and instigated more discussion on career paths when Robert Haines was finished, then after a brief coffee break, the morning Open Mic session continued with Ralf Lämmel‘s presentation intriguingly called Making a failing project succeed?! about the 101Companies project. He called 101Companies a software chrestomathyfrom chresto, meaning “useful” and mathein, meaning “to learn.” He shared other chrestomathies, such as the Hello World Collection and the Evolution of a Haskell programmer. (One of the previous links will lead you to a song about a popular beverage.) 101Companies is a resource for learning Tweet: "101 is a knowledge resource for technological space travel (between all kinds of online spaces)"more about software, for comparing technologies, for programming education, and can serve as “a playground for student projects.” He discussed some of the challenges the project is having and some of the ways in which it is succeeding. PDF

The last Open Mic talk of the morning was by Ashish Gehani giving a quick overview of his work on software, including software to make data more manageable, particularly the OCCAM: Object Culling and Concretization for Assurance Maximization project.

The last agenda item for the morning was to discuss the manifesto that is one of the required Tweets: "we discussed the #manifesto as genre in … section III. … is a great #longread"outputs for this workshop. This discussion was led by James Howison, who shared the link for the Google Doc that was to become the manifesto, and which was discussed and created in tandem (and wild abandon) by many in the room duTweet: "I was, uh, one of the authors of the EAS manifesto. The original EAS manifesto. Not the compromised second draft."ring the time remaining before lunch. The manifesto is our public declaration, our own call to action. Our work is only beginning at Schloss Dagstuhl; we must put what we have discussed here into practice. We shared other manifestos (manifesti!), determined authorship as opt-in (by adding our names to the author list), and talked about but did not determine where this might be published. I found the creation of this document interesting and inspiring, very much in line with the philosophy of “be the change you want to see in the world.”
Tweet: "According to James Howison software as communication between people should be studied."
After getting a good start on the manifesto, we broke for a longer than usual lunch period, after which some took a long hike with a lakeside stop for a refreshing beverage, and some did other things. I took a much-needed nap and then noodled around for a bit in the music room, view of the music room looking toward the piano from the far end a lovely large, long room with wonderful acoustics and a recently-tuned grand piano, two guitars, a cello, and a violin available. (I discovered later in the week that the violin case also holds a kazoo.) small ornate doorway decorated with naked cherubs and a shield with 1743 on itScores for solo and ensemble music are stocked in a room at one end of the music room, the (small) door to which is watched over by cherubs. Most of the Schloss is modern in appearance; this is one of the few rooms that reveals the building’s history. I found plenty of music to amuse myself with, including a collection of Bach preludes and fugues from the WTC apparently edited by Bartók and in what to me was a confusing order, and Beethoven sonatas that at one time I knew how to butcher. Others reported having taken shorter walks than the one that was organized, listening to podcasts, trying out the bicycles available for guests, and also napping.

As you have likely surmised by now, the Twitter hashtag for this event was , and the Twitter feed offers more pictures and information about this workshop.

Engineering Academic Software, Schloss Dagstuhl Day 2

Tuesday started with Jeffrey Carver from the University of Alabama presenting What we have learned about using software engineering practices in scientific software. They took a multi-pronged approach to studying scientific software, from conducting surveys and workshop to direct interactions and case studies. From survey work, his team was able to group problems scientists were having with their own software into four main areas: rework, performance, regression (testing), and forgetting bugs. From this, they could see what software engineering practices might help with solving the problems.

Case studies brought numerous lessons to light; they found that the use of higher-level languages was low, performance competes with other goals, and external software use can be seen as risky. Workshops highlighted some of the differences between scientist programmers and software engineers and their domains. Scientist developers often lack formal software engineering expertise but have deep knowledge of their domains and are often the main users of their software. Quality goals are different, too; scientists would rather software not run than return an incorrect result. This project demonstrated that there is a need to eliminate the stigma associated with software engineering and that software engineers need to understand domain constraints and specific problems. PDF

Every presentation sparked lively Q&A and discussion, often throughout the presentation, and this one was no exception. User stories beat data even for scientistsScreen Shot 2016-06-22 at 7.49.08 PM

The next presentation was Engineering yt by Matthew Turk from NCSA at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign. He provided context and information on this well-cited community-developed project, discussed how the community was built, and its adoption of a code of conduct. YTEP, yt Enhancement Proposals, provide a method to manage suggestions for improving yt. Communication methods within the community are well thought out. The challenges of creating and managing the community sparked a lot of discussion; large software projects can have many things go wrong. tweet about change
Failure Modes

Discussion among the group made Matt’s presentation run long, making it necessary to break for coffee before Matt’s talk was done and then return to it after the break. The group was very engaged throughout the day; fortunately, the schedule accommodated the frequent discussions in every presention very well.

After Matt’s talk, Caroline Jay (University of Manchester) and Robert Haines (Software Sustainability Institute) presented Software as academic output. They discussed software’s role in research, when it can be a tool that enables research or the actual research itself, and how this is different depending on the discipline and the functionality of the software within the discipline and the role of the person using the software. They made the point that “Software isn’t a separate thing — software could exist without the paper; the paper couldn’t exist without the software.”
Daniel's tweetChristoph's tweetOh, there was much more goodness in this presentation, which was interrupted by lunch, than I have time to report, including The Horror, as it was termed — the steps necessary for someone to replicate the computational work on one of the research projects this presentation covered — and Robert’s work on making this computational work software available in Docker. It also touched on the FAIR principles for computational research and academic software, and like the other presentations, generated lots of discussion, including conversations in the group on ethical considerations. PDFDan Katz's tweetOscar's tweet

The last formal presentation of the day, before the breakout workgroups, was by Claude Kirchner (INRIA) on the Software Heritage Project. He covered the rationale for this project, which includes the inconsiderate or malicious loss of code and the desire to preserve “our technical and scientific knowledge.” The Software Heritage Project has set out to preserve all the software. Yes, you read that correctly: All the software. Fortunately, a version of the slides for this presentation are online so you can see them for yourself! The site is scheduled to go live next week and I look forward to seeing it.

After Claude’s presentation, we went into breakout sessions.
Christoph's tweet re breakout groupsI joined a breakout session on getting a standing award for scientific contributions through software created. The other breakout sessions were on creating a research software engineering handbook and academic software project typology. All groups reported back before the day’s session ended for dinner. Quite an informative, exciting, and productive day!

Engineering Academic Software

I’ll be heading to Schloss Dahstuhl in June for a Perspectives Workshop on Engineering Academic Software. Questions the workshop will seek to address include:

  • How is academic software different from other software? What are its most pressing dimensions of quality?
  • Is the software we use and produce in an academic context sustainable? How can we ensure that the software continues to evolve and offer value after serving its initial purpose?
  • How can we adapt software engineering methods for the unique academic context without losing quality?
  • How can we balance domain knowledge and expertise with software engineering knowledge and expertise in an academic research team?
  • Do quality aspects of academic software apply to open data as well? How can well-engineered academic software together with open data make science more reproducible?

I look forward to tackling these and other questions with the other participants, and thank  Carole Goble , James Howison, Claude Kirchner, and Oscar M. Nierstrasz for organizing the workshop. Experiment with building your own software registry/repository

The ASCL is offering clones of its infrastructure for any group or discipline wanting to build a code registry or repository of its own, with control of the new resource residing with the requesting parties. If you would like to build your own software resource, you can take our infrastructure, configure it as you like, and use it.

Specifically, we’re offering to:

  • clone the ASCL infrastructure to your domain name
  • host the infrastructure for at least three years (if you’d like) at MTU
  • share innovations on ASCL with those who accept this offer
  • maintain the host
  • let you move your site elsewhere with data intact

We would expect you to:

  • pay for/provide a domain name
  • have control over the site and configure it for your own use
  • use the site for a software repository/registry
  • gather ye codes as ye may
  • share innovations on the site with the ASCL and others who accept this offer
  • not do anything harmful to MTU’s computing environment is built using these open source tools:

  • mySQL
  • WordPress
  • phpbb
  • CodeIgniter

Interested? Let us know at or comment below.

Looking before Leaping: Creating a Software Registry

Judy Schmidt, our designer/developer, and I have a new paper, “Looking before Leaping: Creating a Software Registry,” in the Journal of Open Research Software. The article is open access and can be found here:

When I started work on the ASCL in 2010, I wanted to understand why the original ASCL — started in 1999 — and other previous similar resources had not reached critical mass. I looked at these resources, what they offered, and how they were structured, and for some of them, talked with the people who had started them, to see what I could learn from their experiences. In addition, Robert Nemiroff and I have had many conversations about the early days of the ASCL, and I also talked with researchers who used some of these services. The lessons from this look back has informed our work on the ASCL. My background in change management has also been helpful in determining the ASCL’s path forward. In the paper, we share not only some of what was learned, but also specific steps we’ve taken, why we’ve taken them, how the ASCL has changed over time, and some of our future plans.

The first version of this paper was accepted for the 2nd Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences (WSSSPE2), which took place in New Orleans in November 2014, and was later revised for publication.

WSSSPE2 blog post
3rd Workshop on Sustainable Software for Science: Practice and Experiences

Improving Software Citation and Credit BoF session slides

On Tuesday, October 27, the ASCL held a Birds of a Feather session at ADASS on Improving Software Citation and Credit. The session was opened with a brief presentation by Bruce Berriman, who reported on a Software Publishing Special Interest Group meeting held at the January 2015 AAS meeting and the ongoing work that has come out of that. I followed with a quick overview of other efforts to improve software credit and citation, not just in astronomy but across disciplines, after which Keith Shortridge moderated a lively discussion among the forty people present. The slides Bruce and I presented are now available online.

Previously, we shared resources for the session and the Google doc created during the session to capture some of the main points from the discussion.