write blog post about conference results.

[jcolomb]

• Intro (Robert)
• cultural (Julieta)
• tech (Moritz)
• review (julien)

[jcolomb]

it was indeed very good, we had quality instead of quantity... we could have manage our timing a bit better, but the session moderation was fantastic.

22:30

my final summary notes:
Evaluation criteria:

• Is it understandable / findable (also for non researchers) : summary, lay summary, readme
• Is the history of the project accessible and understandable (if relevant): git history, written doc, blogs
• Who did what is stated clearly (authorship criteria)
• Does it seem complete ?
• Full replication made
• Community part
• impact ??
  -> connection with other research outputs
  -> DOI, citable

additional thought reading my notes: different types of OSH (early prototype, late prototype, market ready product,...) may have different types of review criteria. This could be branded with different badges/journal name...