Revise Guide for Editors Chapter

[mpadge]

Beyond #486, the chapter could do with a restructure. In particular:

• Ensure chapter follows actual typical workflow, so EiC first, then editor (plus further considerations below)
• Revise current "out-of-scope" primary sub-section to make part of EiC responsiblities
• Expand that sub-section to consider other aspects of general question of fit or not, including aspects such as "thin wrappers" (Update the scope for API wrappers #478), and explicitly describing/demonstrating how the statisical summary can be used to judge whether packages may not have enough code, functions, whatever to be worth reviewing.
• Move current "Answering reviewers' questions primary sub-section within broader "Handling Editors" sub-section
• Rename "Handling Editors Checklist" primary sub-section to something more general ("Handling Editors Responibilities")
• Maybe separate Handling Editor sub-section into several distinct sub-sections (Upon Submission; Finding and Assigning Reviews; Managing the Review Process).

Any initial thoughts @maelle @noamross?

[maelle]

Thank you!!

Does it mean we should assign #478 to you so you might handle both issues in a single PR?

[maelle]

All changes sound good to me.

[maelle]

@mpadge ready to make a PR for this? I'd then run babeldown::deepl_update() 😁

[maelle]

What's missing from the editor guide is what an editor should check before handing off to reviewers. And what the editor should not do as the editor checks are not a review but we do want to take some load off reviewers if we can and notice something amiss. 🤪

• Ensure the goal of the package is clear from reading the README.
• Check one's favorite nitpicks... but hopefully these ones should end up in pkgcheck or the dev guide? Like, I always check for top-level code in tests or expectations that have a more specific equivalent.

Maybe ask other editors what they usually do? Or read editor checks myself?

[maelle]

@mpadge do you think this can happen for release 1.0.0 which will be in August? If not, please remove the milestone from this issue. Thank you!