[not_the_nsa]

I've experienced this from the opposite side (positive feedback) and wanted to share that the tone and structure of the rOpenSci community seem to foster positive feedback and community interactions.

I maintain an R package, an API wrapper for a popular electronic data capture framework, which was peer-reviewed by rOpenSci (https://ropensci.org/). They put extreme care into making software as accessible and inclusive as possible, which I like a lot. Especially the rOpenSci community (see their CoC (https://ropensci.org/code-of-conduct/)) is full of considerate, caring human beings. One could call them the Anti-SO.

Through the peer review process, community requests and GH issues, there's probably a year's worth of spit-polishing added on top of the "works for me" level. This is my first publicly used software package, so I'm taking this as a learning curve and I'm bending over backwards to making this package as inviting and usable as possible. I get away with this as I'm a public servant and paid to deliver value to the general public. And I must say, every improvement over my initial "good enough" version has paid off against the main project I'm using this package for.

So my experience with this tiny, niche, package is overwhelmingly positive. I blame the audience - R programmers, rOpenSci members, and members of the community of the software I'm API-wrapping, which all are stressed out researchers grateful for help. These communities have also a good code of conduct. Maybe also issue templates with friendly guidance to give me very precise feedback (and the advice to take common sense over my guidance) help. Maybe they also repel low effort "could you please do my homework for me" queries.