add DMV-RSE blog post in News and Updates, update the DMV-RSE hompage #1651
Conversation
| tags: [update, dmv-rse] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| The second DMV-RSE meetup, broadly centered on RSE Career Development, started strong -- pizza, drinks, and some casual introductory chatter and professional updates. After that, a small but dedicated crowd heard from Dr. Angeline Burrell, a research physicist at the Space Science Division, Naval Research Laboratory. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It would help to add a sentence clarifying what DMV-RSE is. Maybe something like: The second in-person meetup of the DC-area/Maryland/Virgina RSE Affinity group (and link to your affinity group page -sorry if this isn't the precise name)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added that and linked to the website.
|
|
||
|  | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Some general sentence -- I didn't follow that the two topics below were what Dr. Burrell discussed. So something like Dr. Burrell spoke to the group about X, Y, and Z. Two themes were:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did the speaker talk about both topics? Or just the first - I'm not clear
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I clarified that.
|  | ||
|
|
||
|
|
||
| **Promoting (RSE) careers: writing effective recommendation letters.** Not everyone will be called upon to write an effective recommendation letter, but almost everyone will need one at some point. Recommendation letters are an important leverage point in a research scientists' career. But there’s nuance to it: How to make sure to best promote the candidate, but also retain professional integrity and provide a fair assessment? How to make sure the language used does not bias against the candidate's prospects? (hint: use a gender bias calculator: https://slowe.github.io/genderbias/) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Grammar on the above, to make the questions complete sentences: How can you best promote the candidate, but also retain your professional integrity and provide a fair assessment?
For the second question, when trying to correct it, I realized I'm not 100% sure what it's saying. Is it: How can you ensure that the language you use to describe the candidate does not bias someone against them?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I tried to make that more explicit.
|
|
||
| **Incentivizing via funding: evaluation needs to show some teeth.** Finally, an audience question moved us to more systemic leverage points: how do we incentivize sharing code and data in funding schemes and applications? The first step is to make artifact (e.g. code and data) management plans required. However, this measure alone can and will fail if the evaluation stage shows no teeth and does not directly penalize poorly thought through applications. Attendees experienced in evaluating funding proposals shared their stories of how such watered down evaluation can look like in practice. | ||
|
|
||
| All in all, a half-hour presentation led to about an hour long, rich discussion and sharing of RSE experiences among RSEs coming from a diverse set of research environments (National Institutes of health, Naval Research Laboratory, National Labs, National Institutes of Standards and Technology, NASA, private sector...). A few new participants joined the US-RSE Slack, and some of us connected afterwards. Just what this meetup is supposed to do. Next up is a meetup in Spring, stay tuned for details! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe add at the end how someone can join the affinity group and hear about upcoming events if they're interested
2 participants
Description
This PR:
_posts/newsletters/2025-01-30-update-dmv-rse.md) with two associated images in/assets/img.pages/ag/dmv-rse.md)This text was reviewed by the DMV-RSE affinity group co-chair and the event guest speaker.
Checklist:
When you are ready for a technical review/merge, post the for the link for the PR in the US-RSE Slack (#website) to ask for reviewers.