[DOC] Adds 'quick start' guidelines for new contributors

[jbteves]

Closes #292 .

Changes proposed in this pull request:

• Changes CONTRIBUTING and README to give a new contributor "quick start"

[jbteves]

Sorry to ask for so many reviewers but if we're successful at OHBM there will be a lot of eyeballs on this; therefore, I'd like more eyeballs on it sooner rather than later!

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #293 into master will decrease coverage by 0.16%.
The diff coverage is n/a.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master    #293      +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   49.36%   49.2%   -0.17%     
=========================================
  Files          39      39              
  Lines        2133    2140       +7     
=========================================
  Hits         1053    1053              
- Misses       1080    1087       +7

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
tedana/selection/tedica.py	23.52% <0%> (-1.28%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 84b7c4c...390a124. Read the comment docs.

[dowdlelt]

If I'm going to be picky I would like it to say "Let us know what your interests are ..." rather than 'skills'. I had no skills when I came to tedana but I was really really interested in seeing some figures for the results so thats what I dove into.

[jbteves]

Pickiness is great.

I don't know if you knew, but you can mark your review as "request changes" when you do a review, which makes it more explicit that you'd like a change. It also prevents merging.

[emdupre]

So sorry, adding the contributors section added a merge conflict ! Is there any way you could patch that ?

[jbteves]

Okay, I think that's resolved the way we'd like. Let me know if not.

[emdupre]

I think we still want this heading, just below the quick start recommendation 😸

Also, WDYT about moving up this text to above the code of conduct reminder ? That way it's clear that the CoC governs gitter, too. At least, that's how I'd read it !

[jbteves]

Wow, I totally missed this comment until @tsalo pointed it out, my bad. The subtraction was another merge casualty; I really need to be more careful next time.

What would you think about additionally adding a line to clarify that the CoC applies broadly across the project, just to be super-duper clear? I (optimistically) hope it never becomes an issue, but at least then it's clear.

[tsalo]

I agree with @emdupre's point, but other than that it looks good to me.

[jbteves]

I've addressed the above, and added more broad applicability to the CoC statement. I can revert the commit or adjust it if it's not what you'd like.

[tsalo]

LGTM.

[emdupre]

LGTM, too ! Thanks !!